View in EDS

Long-term cognitive functional limitations post stroke: objective assessment compared with self-evaluations and spouse reports.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Long-term cognitive functional limitations post stroke: objective assessment compared with self-evaluations and spouse reports.
Authors: Wendel K (AUTHOR), Risberg J (AUTHOR), Pessah-Rasmussen H (AUTHOR), Ståhl A (AUTHOR), Iwarsson S (AUTHOR)
Source: International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 2008 Sep, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p231-239. 9p.
Abstract: This study was part of a Swedish interdisciplinary research project targeting accessibility problems in public transport for people with cognitive functional limitations (CFLs). The objective was to describe and compare different assessment perspectives of long-term CFLs among community citizens having had CFLs in the acute stroke phase but with moderate physical limitations. Eighty-four participants in ordinary housing 18-36 months post stroke, initially sampled from a national quality stroke register, received data collection home-visits. The Cognistat screening instrument was used for an objective assessment, and a study-specific questionnaire for self-evaluations of CFLs. A revised form of the latter questionnaire was used for reports from spouses of a subset of 30 participants. The agreement between self-evaluated CFLs and spouse reports was analysed by percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa, whereas differences in ratings were tested by McNemar's test, as were differences between objective and self-evaluated/spouse-reported occurrence of CFLs. Regardless of the different perspectives applied, CFLs were frequent. In absence of significant difference in ratings, the percentage agreement between self-evaluations and spouse reports was good or very good, whereas kappa values were less encouraging. Overall, participants and spouses expressed more CFLs, as compared with the screening. Most consistency was demonstrated for the area of calculation. When researchers and clinicians solely rely on cognitive screenings in their investigations, there is a considerable risk for underestimations of CFLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Rehabilitation Research is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:This study was part of a Swedish interdisciplinary research project targeting accessibility problems in public transport for people with cognitive functional limitations (CFLs). The objective was to describe and compare different assessment perspectives of long-term CFLs among community citizens having had CFLs in the acute stroke phase but with moderate physical limitations. Eighty-four participants in ordinary housing 18-36 months post stroke, initially sampled from a national quality stroke register, received data collection home-visits. The Cognistat screening instrument was used for an objective assessment, and a study-specific questionnaire for self-evaluations of CFLs. A revised form of the latter questionnaire was used for reports from spouses of a subset of 30 participants. The agreement between self-evaluated CFLs and spouse reports was analysed by percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa, whereas differences in ratings were tested by McNemar's test, as were differences between objective and self-evaluated/spouse-reported occurrence of CFLs. Regardless of the different perspectives applied, CFLs were frequent. In absence of significant difference in ratings, the percentage agreement between self-evaluations and spouse reports was good or very good, whereas kappa values were less encouraging. Overall, participants and spouses expressed more CFLs, as compared with the screening. Most consistency was demonstrated for the area of calculation. When researchers and clinicians solely rely on cognitive screenings in their investigations, there is a considerable risk for underestimations of CFLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:03425282
DOI:10.1097/mrr.0b013e3283021912