Psychometric analysis of the Glasgow Coma Scale and its sub-scale scores in a national retrospective cohort of patients with traumatic injuries

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 17; no. 6; p. e0268527
• Main Authors: Mateen, Bilal A, Horton, Mike, Playford, E Diane
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 08.06.2022; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Biology and Life Sciences; Calibration; Care and treatment; Cohort Studies; Coma; Computer and Information Sciences; Consciousness; Datasets; Diagnosis; Empirical analysis; Fatalities; Female; Glasgow Coma Scale; Humans; Injuries; Injury analysis; Male; Medicine and Health Sciences; Middle Aged; Mortality; Patients; Physical Sciences; Psychometrics; Quantitative psychology; Reproducibility of Results; Research and Analysis Methods; Retrospective Studies; Social Sciences; Statistical analysis; Statistics; Trauma; Wounds and injuries; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268527

To determine the psychometric validity, using Rasch analysis, of summing the three constituent parts of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). National (registry-based) retrospective study. England and Wales. All individuals who sustained a traumatic injury and were: admitted for more than three days; required critical care resources; transferred for specialist management; or who died from their injuries. Demographic information (i.e., age at time of injury, and sex), item sub-scores of the first available GCS (either completed by the attending paramedics or on arrival to hospital), injury severity as denoted by the Injury Severity Scale (ISS), and outcome (survival to hospital discharge or 30-days post-injury, whichever is earliest). 321,203 cases between 2008 and 2017. 55.9% were male, the median age was 62.7 years (IQR 44.2-80.8), the median ISS was 9 (IQR 9 to 17), and 6.6% were deceased at 30 days. The reliability statistics suggest that when the extreme scores (i.e. 3 and 15) are accounted for, that there is only sufficient consistency to support the separation of injuries into 3 broad categories, e.g. mild, moderate and severe. As extreme scores don't impact Rasch item calibrations, subsequent analysis was restricted to the 48,417 non-extreme unique cases. Overall fit to the Rasch model was poor across all analyses (p < 0.0001). Through a combination of empirical evidence and clinical reasoning, item response categories were collapsed to provide a post-hoc scoring amendment. Whilst the modifications improved the function of the individual items, there is little evidence to support them meaningfully contributing to a total score that can be interpreted on an interval scale. The GCS does not perform in a psychometrically robust manner in a national retrospective cohort of individuals who have experienced a traumatic injury, even after post-hoc correction.