*Limitations*

This work has some limitations that should be recognized. Firstly, the comparability of goal attainment across patients when delivering an individualized intervention is always uncertain, and although the intervention was manualized, the specific content was tailored to the individual patient. However, the individualized nature of the intervention is also thought to be a major strength, given the heterogeneous nature of long-term symptoms of TBI, and because it allows participants to define for themselves what areas are important for them to work on, further enhancing patient involvement. Secondly, the efficacy of this intervention has not yet been established. Although this study is based on a similar RCT, which did demonstrate significant between-group effects [55], effects have not yet been investigated in our sample pending final outcome assessments. This entails that we do not yet know whether the high level of goal attainment is accompanied by improved participation and quality of life, which are the primary outcome measures in the RCT. However, high goal attainment is an important positive finding regardless of group average changes on global outcome measures. Thirdly, the sample may not be representative of patients with TBI in general. Rather, the study included those who continue to experience TBIrelated challenges in everyday life and who were motivated to participate in rehabilitation. Thus, the sample is considered representative of patients seen in specialized rehabilitation clinics. Further, GAS scoring has some limitations, i.e., there may be reliability issues in the establishment and scoring of GAS. For example, there is a risk of the development of different procedures by each therapist, and, as noted earlier, the scoring is deemed to be subjective in nature. In this study, GAS scoring was conducted by the therapists, as scoring by a blinded third party was not feasible. How to best compute GAS scores across goals and individuals is also disputed, which is the reason that GAS change scores were applied instead of t-scores, as these are controversial [84]. In addition, it is important to note that the problem categories used in the current paper were based on previous work by our research group using a data-driven approach. Different approaches could be applied that might have resulted in a somewhat different categorization of goals. There is currently no gold standard in taxonomies for goal categorization, although some suggestions have been made elsewhere [85,86]. The exploratory regression models were conducted to generate hypothesis for future research, and identified factors should not be considered as predictive of goal attainment without replication.
