1. This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Pogoda TK, Iverson KM, Meterko M, Baker E, Hendricks AM, Stolzmann KL, Krengel M, Charns MP, Amara J, Kimerling R, Lew HL. Concordance of clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury history with a diagnostic standard. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):XXX–XXX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115JSP Concordance of clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury history with a diagnostic standard Terri K. Pogoda, PhD; Katherine M. Iverson, PhD; Mark Meterko, PhD; Errol Baker, PhD; Ann M. Hendricks, PhD; Kelly L. Stolzmann, MS; Maxine Krengel, PhD; Martin P. Charns, DBA; Jomana Amara, PhD; Rachel Kimerling, PhD; Henry L. Lew, MD, PhD

2. This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Pogoda TK, Iverson KM, Meterko M, Baker E, Hendricks AM, Stolzmann KL, Krengel M, Charns MP, Amara J, Kimerling R, Lew HL. Concordance of clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury history with a diagnostic standard. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):XXX–XXX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115JSP Aim – Examine concordance of VA clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) history with American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM)-based criteria for Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) Veterans. Relevance – Examining associations between evaluation outcomes and patient characteristics, deployment-related events, self-reported health symptoms, and psychiatric conditions can clarify inconsistencies in mTBI diagnoses.

3. This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Pogoda TK, Iverson KM, Meterko M, Baker E, Hendricks AM, Stolzmann KL, Krengel M, Charns MP, Amara J, Kimerling R, Lew HL. Concordance of clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury history with a diagnostic standard. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):XXX–XXX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115JSP Method Examined Veteran sample as defined by ACRM- based criteria: – 14,026 OIF/OEF VA patients. With deployment-related mTBI: 9,858. With no history of mTBI: 4,168.

4. This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Pogoda TK, Iverson KM, Meterko M, Baker E, Hendricks AM, Stolzmann KL, Krengel M, Charns MP, Amara J, Kimerling R, Lew HL. Concordance of clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury history with a diagnostic standard. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):XXX–XXX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115JSP Results Clinician judgment agreed with ACRM-based criteria in majority of cases (76.0%). Most common inconsistency was between clinician judgment (no) and ACRM-based criteria (yes) for 21.3% of patients. Additional factors associated with clinician diagnosis and ACRM-based criteria disagreement: – Injury etiology. – Current self-reported health symptoms. – Suspected psychiatric conditions.

5. This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Pogoda TK, Iverson KM, Meterko M, Baker E, Hendricks AM, Stolzmann KL, Krengel M, Charns MP, Amara J, Kimerling R, Lew HL. Concordance of clinician judgment of mild traumatic brain injury history with a diagnostic standard. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):XXX–XXX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0115JSP Conclusion Adherence to established diagnostic guidelines is essential for: – Accurate determination of mTBI history. – Understanding extent to which mTBI symptoms resolve or persist over time in OIF/OEF Veterans