Poster The Joint Annual Meeting of the Stroke Society of Australasia (SSA) and Smartstrokes 2023

Are Current Self-Efficacy Measures Reliable and Valid for Stroke Survivors? (#150)

Karl R Espernberger 1 2 , Natalie A Fini 3 , Allison Ezzat 2 4 , Casey Peiris 2 5
  1. Ramsay Health Care - Donvale Rehabilitation Hospital, Croydon Hills, VICTORIA, Australia
  2. La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  5. Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background:

Low self-efficacy is considered physical activity recommendations. However, tools used to measure self-efficacy currently used in research and clinical practice haven’t been tested for validity and reliability in the stroke population.

Aims:

To evaluate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of three self-efficacy scales for use with stroke survivors.

Methods:

A repeated-measures reliability and construct validity study was conducted. Fifty-one community-dwelling stroke survivors (mean age = 74 years, median steps/day = 4,664) completed three self-efficacy scales on two occasions, seven days apart (Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale (SEE), Spinal Cord Injury Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (SCI-ESES) and community management domain of the Participation Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale (PS-SES)). Construct validity was assessed using eight hypotheses determined a-priori, evaluating community participation, physical activity, comorbidities and physical function via t-tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability was analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results:

Test-retest reliability was established for the SEE (ICC=0.8) , PS-SES (ICC=0.8) and the SCI-ESES (ICC=0.7). The SEE and SCI-ESES achieved 3/8 hypotheses for construct validity, while the PS-SES achieved 2/8. The three measures were highly correlated with each other and with self-reported levels of physical activity, but failed to achieve target levels (r≥0.5) for association with objective physical activity levels, comorbidity or function.

Conclusion:

All three measures (SEE, PS-SES and SCI-ESES) showed high test-retest reliability. However, it appears that construct validity is insufficient for clinical or research settings. Measurement of a complex phenomenon such as self-efficacy poses a challenge for the stroke research and clinical communities. Development of valid and reliable tools to better understand and measure post stroke self-efficacy for physical activity appears warranted.