The assessment criteria for interviewing an adult TBI survivor may be broken down into three elements. These are 1) the population on which the personality model is based; 2) the source of information for generating the model, and 3) the procedure used for generating the model. Other research groups may have used more complex criteria standards but, for the purpose at hand, the paper finds that this is sufficient. It is notable, in the context of this review, that most studies test personality post-TBI using scales with underlying personality models that have been specifically developed for populations groups other than those with TBI. Such scales, such as the NPRS and the NBAP[3}, may not be effective in the sense that when they are deployed on TBI populations they are standardised for this purpose though they had been initially developed for other population groups (Obonwasin et al, 2007). Scales like the NEO-PI, have been developed for the general population and when it is standardised for use on TBI populations the net effect is probably that of imposing a framework developed on personality relevant to the general population on personality changes usually deemed to be associated with TBI. In contrast to these non-TBI specific scales NRS, the CPP and the HIBS were all developed based on information gathered from TBI survivors. It is noted that though the CPP scale is very useful it has not led to any significant changes in the theoretical structure for TBI personality change enquiry. The HIBS is considered too recent to be judged on usefulness yet and the NRS is more of a scale that is useful and popular for assessing neurobehavioural functionalities. Its factor structure is such that a framework is provided for assessing general neurobehavioural changes rather than personality ones (Obonwasin et al, 2007).
The review thus feels, as per Obonwasin et al, 2007, the NRS seems most suitable for use in assessing personality changes in adults post-TBI but it will certainly include and consider those studies that do not use it for the purpose of determining its objective.
The Information Source:
It has often been found that the TBI survivor is not very well aware of his/her cognitive and behavioural problems. In such a context a significant other (SO), someone who knows the survivor well, is interviewed alongside the TBI survivor and both interviews are compared for true value and accuracy of responses (Obonwasin et al, 2007). The discrepancies between the two accounts is meant to be taken as the survivo