Comparison of error-based and errorless learning for people with severe traumatic brain injury: study protocol for a randomized control trial

Trials

Mathilde Chevignard¹  Melissa Kendall⁷  Amanda Lane-Brown³  Julia Schmidt²  Janelle Griffin⁶  David HK Shum⁴  Robyn Tate⁵  Jennifer Fleming⁶  Tamara Ownsworth⁴ 

[1] Rehabilitation Department for Children with Acquired Brain Injury (INR-A), Hôpitaux de Saint Maurice, Saint Maurice, France;Australian Catholic University Sydney, Brisbane, Australia;Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia;School of Applied Psychology and Behavioural Basis of Health Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt 4122, Australia;Brain Injury Unit, Royal Rehabilitation Centre, Sydney, Australia;Princess Alexandra Hospital, Wooloongabba, Australia;Acquired Brain Injury Outreach Service, Brisbane, Australia

关键词: Randomized controlled trial;    Functional activities;    Rehabilitation;    Self-awareness;    Metacognition;    Brain injury;   

Others  :  807944
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-369

 received in 2013-07-12, accepted in 2013-10-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Poor skills generalization poses a major barrier to successful outcomes of rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Error-based learning (EBL) is a relatively new intervention approach that aims to promote skills generalization by teaching people internal self-regulation skills, or how to anticipate, monitor and correct their own errors. This paper describes the protocol of a study that aims to compare the efficacy of EBL and errorless learning (ELL) for improving error self-regulation, behavioral competency, awareness of deficits and long-term outcomes after TBI.

Methods/Design

This randomized, controlled trial (RCT) has two arms (EBL and ELL); each arm entails 8 × 2 h training sessions conducted within the participants’ homes. The first four sessions involve a meal preparation activity, and the final four sessions incorporate a multitasking errand activity. Based on a sample size estimate, 135 participants with severe TBI will be randomized into either the EBL or ELL condition. The primary outcome measure assesses error self-regulation skills on a task related to but distinct from training. Secondary outcomes include measures of self-monitoring and self-regulation, behavioral competency, awareness of deficits, role participation and supportive care needs. Assessments will be conducted at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 6-months post-intervention.

Discussion

This study seeks to determine the efficacy and long-term impact of EBL for training internal self-regulation strategies following severe TBI. In doing so, the study will advance theoretical understanding of the role of errors in task learning and skills generalization. EBL has the potential to reduce the length and costs of rehabilitation and lifestyle support because the techniques could enhance generalization success and lifelong application of strategies after TBI.

Trial registration

ACTRN12613000585729.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ownsworth et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Langlois J, Rutland-Brown W, Thomas K: The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief overview. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2006, 5:375-378.
• [2]Tate RL: Assessing support needs for people with traumatic brain injury: the Care and Needs Scale (CANS). Brain Inj 2004, 18:445-460.
• [3]Access Economics: The economic cost of spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Neurotrauma Institute; 2008.
• [4]Ownsworth T, Turpin M, Carlson G, Brennan J: Perceptions of long-term community-based support following severe acquired brain injury. Brain Impairment 2004, 5:53-66.
• [5]Marsh NV, Kersel DA, Havill JH, Sleigh JW: Caregiver burden during the year following severe traumatic brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2002, 24:434-447.
• [6]Larson MJ, Kaufman D, Schmalfuss IM, Perlstein WM: Performance monitoring, error processing, and evaluative control following severe TBI. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2007, 13:961-971.
• [7]Toglia J, Kirk U: Understanding awareness deficits following brain injury. Neurorehabilitation 2000, 15:57-70.
• [8]Evans J, Wilson BA, Schuri U, Andrade J, Baddeley A, Bruna O, Canavan T, Del Sala S, Green R, Laaksonen R, Lorenzi L, Taussik I: A comparison of “errorless” and “trial-and-error” learning methods for teaching individuals with acquired memory deficits. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2000, 10:67-101.
• [9]Glisky EL, Schacter DL, Tulving E: Computer learning by memory-impaired patients: acquisition and retention of complex knowledge. Neuropsychologia 1986, 24:313-328.
• [10]Clare L, Jones R: Errorless learning in the rehabilitation of memory impairment: a critical review. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2008, 18:1-23.
• [11]Ehlhardt L, Sohlberg M, Kennedy M, Coelho C, Ylvisaker M: Evidence-based practice guidelines for instructing individuals with neurogenic memory impairments: what have we learned in the past 20 years? Neuropsychol Rehabil 2008, 18:300-342.
• [12]Toglia JP: The Dynamic Interactional Model of Cognition in cognitive rehabilitation. In Cognition, Occupation, and Participation Across the Life Span: Neuroscience, Neurorehabilitation, and Models of Intervention in Occupational Therapy. 3rd edition. Edited by Katz N. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press; 2011:161-201.
• [13]Schmidt J, Lannin N, Fleming J, Ownsworth T: Determining the evidence for feedback interventions for impaired self-awareness following brain injury: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2011, 43:673-680.
• [14]Ownsworth TL, Fleming J, Shum D, Kuipers P, Strong J: Comparison of individual, group and combined intervention formats in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for facilitating goal attainment and improving psychosocial function following acquired brain injury. J Rehabil Med 2008, 40:81-88.
• [15]Ownsworth T, Fleming J, Desbois J, Strong J, Kuipers P: A metacognitive contextual intervention to enhance error awareness and functional performance following traumatic brain injury: a single case experimental design. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2006, 12:54-63.
• [16]Ownsworth TL, Quinn H, Fleming J, Kendall M, Shum D: Error self-regulation following traumatic brain injury: a single case study evaluation of metacognitive skills training and behavioural practice interventions. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2010, 20:59-80.
• [17]Nourbakhsh MRM, Ottenbacher KJ: The statistical analysis of single-subject data: a comparative examination. Phys Ther 1994, 74:768-776.
• [18]Schmidt J, Fleming T, Lannin N: Video feedback on functional task performance improves self-awareness after TBI: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013, 27:316-324.
• [19]Boutron I, Moher D, Altman D, Schulz K, Ravaud P: Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:295-309.
• [20]Domholdt E: Rehabilitation Research: Principles and applications. St Louis, MI: Elsevier Saunders; 2005.
• [21]Chevignard MP, Taillefer C, Picq C, Poncet F, Noulhiane , Pradat-Diehl P: Ecological assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome using execution of a cooking task. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2008, 18:461-485.
• [22]Hart T, Fann JR, Novack TA: The dilemma of the control condition in experience-based cognitive and behavioural treatment research. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2008, 18:1-21.
• [23]Tate R, Lulham J, Broe G, Strettles B, Pfaff A: Psychosocial outcome for the survivors of severe blunt head injury: the results from a consecutive series of 100 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1989, 52:1128-1134.
• [24]Ownsworth T, Fleming J: The relative importance of metacognitive skills, emotional status and executive functioning in psychosocial adjustment following acquired brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2005, 20:315-332.
• [25]Prigatano GP, Fordyce D, Zeiner H, Roueche J, Pepping M, Wood B: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation After Brain Injury. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1986.
• [26]Pagulayan KF, Temkin NR, Machamer JE, Diman SS: The measurement and magnitude of awareness difficulties after traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2007, 13:561-570.
• [27]Green P, Rohling M, Lees-Haley P, Allen L: Effort has a greater effect on test scores than severe brain injury in compensation claimants. Brain Inj 2001, 15:1045-1060.
• [28]Lee KJ, Thompson S: Clustering by health professional in individually randomised trials. Br Med J 2005, 330:142-144.
• [29]Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, Bellg AJ, Czajkowski S, Breger R, DeFrancesco C, Levesque C, Sharp DL, Ogedegbe G, Resnick B, Orwig D: A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across ten years of health behavior research. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005, 73:852-860.
• [30]Borrelli B: The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. J Public Health Dent 2011, 71:s52-s63.
• [31]Chevignard MP, Catroppa C, Galvin J, Anderson V: Development and evaluation of an ecological task to assess executive functioning post childhood TBI: the children’s cooking task. Brain Impairment 2010, 11:125-143.
• [32]Wilson BA, Alderman N, Burgess PW, Emslie H, Evans JJ: Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS). Bury St. Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company; 1996.
• [33]Norris G, Tate RL: The behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome (BADS): ecological, concurrent and construct validity. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2000, 10:33-45.
• [34]Kolakowsky-Hayner S: The patient competency rating scale. [http://www.tbims.org/combi/pcrs webcite]
• [35]Sherer M: The awareness questionnaire. [http://www.tbims.org/combi/aq webcite]
• [36]Tate RL, Hodgkinson A, Veerabangsa A, Maggioto S: Measuring psychosocial recovery after traumatic injury: properties of a new scale. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1999, 14:543-557.
• [37]Tate RL, Simpson GK, Soo CA, Lane-Brown AT: Participation after acquired brain injury: clinical and psychometric considerations of the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS). J Rehabil Med 2011, 43:609-618.
• [38]Soo C, Tate R, Hopman K, Forman M, Secheny T, Aird V, Browne S, Coulston C: Reliability of the Care and Needs Scale for assessing support needs after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2007, 22:288-295.
• [39]Soo C, Tate R, Aird V, Allaous J, Browne S, Carr B, Coulston C, Diffley L, Gurka J, Hummell J: Validity and responsiveness of the Care and Needs Scale (CANS) for assessing support needs following traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010, 91:905-912.
• [40]Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A: G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007, 39:175-191.
• [41]Gupta SK: Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res 2011, 2:109-112.
• [42]Nalder E, Fleming J, Cornwell P, Foster M, Haines T: Factors associated with the occurrence of sentinel events during transition from hospital to home individuals with traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Med 2012, 44:837-844.