1
Summary Articles Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
and Treatment
PSMNB-5, University of Groningen
, 2
Contents
Week 1. Rehabilitation of Cognitive Disorders – Introduction
- Van Heugten et al (2020)………………………………………………………… 3
- Cicerone et al (2019)……………………………………………………………… 4
- Togher et al (2023)…………………………………………………………………. 10
Week 2.
- Ren et al (2024)……………………………………………………………………... 13
- Smidstra et al (2024)………………………………………………………………... 14
Week 3. Anxiety and Trauma in the Adult Neurorehabilitation Setting
- Barua et al (2024)…………………………………………………………………… 19
- Perkins et al (2021)………………………………………………………………….. 21
- Burback et al (2024)………………………………………………………………... 24
- Janssen et al (2023)………………………………………………………………… 37
Week 4. Cognitive Rehabilitation in Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury
- Anderson & Catroppa (2006)…………………………………………………….. 39
- Resch et al (2018)…………………………………………………………………… 43
- McDonald (2022), chapter 3……………………………………………………… 46
- McDonald (2022), chapter 10……………………………………………………. 51
Week 5. Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT) of Psychotic Disorders
- Nijman et al (2020)………………………………………………………………….. 55
- Nijman et al (2023)………………………………………………………………….. 57
- Vita et al (2021)……………………………………………………………………… 59
- Bowie et al (2020)…………………………………………………………………… 62
Week 6. Rehabilitation of Neglect and Hemianopia
- Corbetta (2014)……………………………………………………………………… 65
- Goodwin (2014)……………………………………………………………………… 69
Week 7. Applied Neuroscience in Neuro-Rehabilitation
- Enriquez-Geppert et al (2019)…………………………………………………….. 73
- Semprini et al (2018)………………………………………………………………… 75
- Colzato (2017)………………………………………………………………………... 77
, 3
Week 1
Rehabilitation of Cognitive Disorders – Introduction
(Van Heugten et al., 2020)
An overview of outcome measures used in neuropsychological rehabilitation
research on adults with acquired brain injury
Introduction
• Outcome measurement is essential for evaluating therapeutic effectiveness in
healthcare, including neuropsychological rehabilitation
• Historically, neuropsychological assessments focused on diagnostics and
cognitive deficits rather than post-treatment outcomes
• Broader rehabilitation goals now include improving quality of life, activities, and
participation, requiring additional outcome measures beyond cognitive tests
• Outcome measurement serves multiple purposes: tracking progress, evaluating
treatment, planning, education, and ensuring accountability
- Recent developments include Common Data Elements (CDEs), NEURO-QOL,
NIH Toolbox, and Patient Centered Outcome Measures (PCOMs)
• Prior recommendations on outcome measures focused mostly on TBI or
psychosocial aspects, not neuropsychological rehabilitation specifically
• This review addresses the lack of a standardized set of outcome measures in
neuropsychological rehabilitation by identifying commonly used tools in
intervention studies
Methods
Results
• Neuropsychological tests: most used in working memory, visual attention/neglect,
and aphasia. Frequently used tests included:
- Digit Span, PASAT, Stroop, TMT, SDMT, BIT, RBMT, CVLT, WAB, WCST, BADS, DEX
• Other instruments: common tools for emotional functioning and broader domains
included:
- BDI-II, HADS, HDRS, MMSE, GAS, SF-36, FIM, EuroQOL, CIQ, CGI, Barthel Index
• Many tools were only used in one study; a few were repeatedly used across
multiple studies
• Overall, a wide variety of instruments are in use, but no standardized set exists for
neuropsychological rehabilitation
Discussion
• Most outcome measures in neuropsychological rehabilitation focus on cognitive
functioning, aligning with the availability of neuropsychological tests
- Rehabilitation extends beyond cognition to include physical, psychological,
social, and vocational well-being
• Outcome measures often emphasize cognitive restoration, while many
interventions focus on compensation and adjustment
• The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)
emphasizes activities and participation as key domains for outcome
measurement, not just mental functions
• Many multi-domain and multi-dimensional instruments are used, though not all
ICF domains are covered; particularly lacking are measures of mobility and
sensory functions
, 4
Future steps towards a standard set of outcome measures
• Core sets could be selected based on usage frequency, psychometric quality,
and responsiveness to change
- Practical factors like instrument availability and assessment time also
influence selection
• Reviews by the authors on awareness and coping after brain injury informed
cautious recommendations due to limited data
• A stepwise procedure combining common usage, psychometric quality, and
expert opinion (e.g., Delphi method) is recommended
• Successful consensus efforts in dementia care and moderate-to-severe TBI can
serve as models
Limitations
• The search strategy relied on existing reviews instead of an independent full
search, possibly limiting scope
• The study focused on TBI and stroke, excluding conditions like MS, which use
condition-specific measures
• Only studies from the last 20 years were included, omitting some older trials and
those after August 2015
• Did not include under-researched areas like social cognitive functioning due to
lack of available studies
Conclusions
• A standard set of outcome measures is necessary to reduce variability and
improve comparability across studies
• The overview serves as a practical guide for clinicians and researchers selecting
outcome measures
• Clinicians are encouraged to propose suitable instruments rather than wait for
external mandates > proactive approach
• Combining scientific quality, feasibility, and expert consensus is key to forming a
core set of outcome measures
(Cicerone et al., 2019)
Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From
2009 Through 2014
Introduction
• The CRTF conducted a systematic review (2009–2014) on cognitive rehabilitation
for individuals with TBI or stroke
• The aim is to provide evidence-based, clinically useful recommendations
integrating patient values and clinical judgment
• Emphasis on functional cognitive outcomes and the practical application of
research findings, not just methodological rigor
Methods
• Extensive literature search
• Studies were classified as class I (highest), class Ia, class II, class III (lowest)
evidence > determines:
• Practice Standards
- Strong evidence of treatment effectiveness (Class I + support from Class II/III)
- Treatment should be specifically considered for individuals with acquired
neurocognitive impairments
Summary Articles Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
and Treatment
PSMNB-5, University of Groningen
, 2
Contents
Week 1. Rehabilitation of Cognitive Disorders – Introduction
- Van Heugten et al (2020)………………………………………………………… 3
- Cicerone et al (2019)……………………………………………………………… 4
- Togher et al (2023)…………………………………………………………………. 10
Week 2.
- Ren et al (2024)……………………………………………………………………... 13
- Smidstra et al (2024)………………………………………………………………... 14
Week 3. Anxiety and Trauma in the Adult Neurorehabilitation Setting
- Barua et al (2024)…………………………………………………………………… 19
- Perkins et al (2021)………………………………………………………………….. 21
- Burback et al (2024)………………………………………………………………... 24
- Janssen et al (2023)………………………………………………………………… 37
Week 4. Cognitive Rehabilitation in Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury
- Anderson & Catroppa (2006)…………………………………………………….. 39
- Resch et al (2018)…………………………………………………………………… 43
- McDonald (2022), chapter 3……………………………………………………… 46
- McDonald (2022), chapter 10……………………………………………………. 51
Week 5. Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT) of Psychotic Disorders
- Nijman et al (2020)………………………………………………………………….. 55
- Nijman et al (2023)………………………………………………………………….. 57
- Vita et al (2021)……………………………………………………………………… 59
- Bowie et al (2020)…………………………………………………………………… 62
Week 6. Rehabilitation of Neglect and Hemianopia
- Corbetta (2014)……………………………………………………………………… 65
- Goodwin (2014)……………………………………………………………………… 69
Week 7. Applied Neuroscience in Neuro-Rehabilitation
- Enriquez-Geppert et al (2019)…………………………………………………….. 73
- Semprini et al (2018)………………………………………………………………… 75
- Colzato (2017)………………………………………………………………………... 77
, 3
Week 1
Rehabilitation of Cognitive Disorders – Introduction
(Van Heugten et al., 2020)
An overview of outcome measures used in neuropsychological rehabilitation
research on adults with acquired brain injury
Introduction
• Outcome measurement is essential for evaluating therapeutic effectiveness in
healthcare, including neuropsychological rehabilitation
• Historically, neuropsychological assessments focused on diagnostics and
cognitive deficits rather than post-treatment outcomes
• Broader rehabilitation goals now include improving quality of life, activities, and
participation, requiring additional outcome measures beyond cognitive tests
• Outcome measurement serves multiple purposes: tracking progress, evaluating
treatment, planning, education, and ensuring accountability
- Recent developments include Common Data Elements (CDEs), NEURO-QOL,
NIH Toolbox, and Patient Centered Outcome Measures (PCOMs)
• Prior recommendations on outcome measures focused mostly on TBI or
psychosocial aspects, not neuropsychological rehabilitation specifically
• This review addresses the lack of a standardized set of outcome measures in
neuropsychological rehabilitation by identifying commonly used tools in
intervention studies
Methods
Results
• Neuropsychological tests: most used in working memory, visual attention/neglect,
and aphasia. Frequently used tests included:
- Digit Span, PASAT, Stroop, TMT, SDMT, BIT, RBMT, CVLT, WAB, WCST, BADS, DEX
• Other instruments: common tools for emotional functioning and broader domains
included:
- BDI-II, HADS, HDRS, MMSE, GAS, SF-36, FIM, EuroQOL, CIQ, CGI, Barthel Index
• Many tools were only used in one study; a few were repeatedly used across
multiple studies
• Overall, a wide variety of instruments are in use, but no standardized set exists for
neuropsychological rehabilitation
Discussion
• Most outcome measures in neuropsychological rehabilitation focus on cognitive
functioning, aligning with the availability of neuropsychological tests
- Rehabilitation extends beyond cognition to include physical, psychological,
social, and vocational well-being
• Outcome measures often emphasize cognitive restoration, while many
interventions focus on compensation and adjustment
• The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)
emphasizes activities and participation as key domains for outcome
measurement, not just mental functions
• Many multi-domain and multi-dimensional instruments are used, though not all
ICF domains are covered; particularly lacking are measures of mobility and
sensory functions
, 4
Future steps towards a standard set of outcome measures
• Core sets could be selected based on usage frequency, psychometric quality,
and responsiveness to change
- Practical factors like instrument availability and assessment time also
influence selection
• Reviews by the authors on awareness and coping after brain injury informed
cautious recommendations due to limited data
• A stepwise procedure combining common usage, psychometric quality, and
expert opinion (e.g., Delphi method) is recommended
• Successful consensus efforts in dementia care and moderate-to-severe TBI can
serve as models
Limitations
• The search strategy relied on existing reviews instead of an independent full
search, possibly limiting scope
• The study focused on TBI and stroke, excluding conditions like MS, which use
condition-specific measures
• Only studies from the last 20 years were included, omitting some older trials and
those after August 2015
• Did not include under-researched areas like social cognitive functioning due to
lack of available studies
Conclusions
• A standard set of outcome measures is necessary to reduce variability and
improve comparability across studies
• The overview serves as a practical guide for clinicians and researchers selecting
outcome measures
• Clinicians are encouraged to propose suitable instruments rather than wait for
external mandates > proactive approach
• Combining scientific quality, feasibility, and expert consensus is key to forming a
core set of outcome measures
(Cicerone et al., 2019)
Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From
2009 Through 2014
Introduction
• The CRTF conducted a systematic review (2009–2014) on cognitive rehabilitation
for individuals with TBI or stroke
• The aim is to provide evidence-based, clinically useful recommendations
integrating patient values and clinical judgment
• Emphasis on functional cognitive outcomes and the practical application of
research findings, not just methodological rigor
Methods
• Extensive literature search
• Studies were classified as class I (highest), class Ia, class II, class III (lowest)
evidence > determines:
• Practice Standards
- Strong evidence of treatment effectiveness (Class I + support from Class II/III)
- Treatment should be specifically considered for individuals with acquired
neurocognitive impairments
