Lesli E Skolarus1, Kathleen M Mazor2, Brisa N Sánchez2, Mackenzie Dome2, José Biller2, Lewis B Morgenstern2. 1. From the Stroke Program (L.E.S., M.D., L.B.M.) and Department of Biostatistics (B.N.S), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (K.M.M.); and Department of Neurology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (J.B.). lerusche@umich.edu. 2. From the Stroke Program (L.E.S., M.D., L.B.M.) and Department of Biostatistics (B.N.S), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (K.M.M.); and Department of Neurology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (J.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke preparedness interventions are limited by the lack of psychometrically sound intermediate end points. We sought to develop and assess the reliability and validity of the video-Stroke Action Test (video-STAT) an English and a Spanish video-based test to assess people's ability to recognize and react to stroke signs. METHODS: Video-STAT development and testing was divided into 4 phases: (1) video development and community-generated response options, (2) pilot testing in community health centers, (3) administration in a national sample, bilingual sample, and neurologist sample, and (4) administration before and after a stroke preparedness intervention. RESULTS: The final version of the video-STAT included 8 videos: 4 acute stroke/emergency, 2 prior stroke/nonemergency, 1 nonstroke/emergency, and 1 nonstroke/nonemergency. Acute stroke recognition and action response were queried after each vignette. Video-STAT scoring was based on the acute stroke vignettes only (score range 0-12 best). The national sample consisted of 598 participants, 438 who took the video-STAT in English and 160 who took the video-STAT in Spanish. There was adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.72). The average video-STAT score was 5.6 (SD=3.6), whereas the average neurologist score was 11.4 (SD=1.3). There was no difference in video-STAT scores between the 116 bilingual video-STAT participants who took the video-STAT in English or Spanish. Compared with baseline scores, the video-STAT scores increased after a stroke preparedness intervention (6.2 versus 8.9, P<0.01) among a sample of 101 black adults and youth. CONCLUSIONS: The video-STAT yields reliable scores that seem to be valid measures of stroke preparedness.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Stroke preparedness interventions are limited by the lack of psychometrically sound intermediate end points. We sought to develop and assess the reliability and validity of the video-Stroke Action Test (video-STAT) an English and a Spanish video-based test to assess people's ability to recognize and react to stroke signs. METHODS: Video-STAT development and testing was divided into 4 phases: (1) video development and community-generated response options, (2) pilot testing in community health centers, (3) administration in a national sample, bilingual sample, and neurologist sample, and (4) administration before and after a stroke preparedness intervention. RESULTS: The final version of the video-STAT included 8 videos: 4 acute stroke/emergency, 2 prior stroke/nonemergency, 1 nonstroke/emergency, and 1 nonstroke/nonemergency. Acute stroke recognition and action response were queried after each vignette. Video-STAT scoring was based on the acute stroke vignettes only (score range 0-12 best). The national sample consisted of 598 participants, 438 who took the video-STAT in English and 160 who took the video-STAT in Spanish. There was adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.72). The average video-STAT score was 5.6 (SD=3.6), whereas the average neurologist score was 11.4 (SD=1.3). There was no difference in video-STAT scores between the 116 bilingual video-STAT participants who took the video-STAT in English or Spanish. Compared with baseline scores, the video-STAT scores increased after a stroke preparedness intervention (6.2 versus 8.9, P<0.01) among a sample of 101 black adults and youth. CONCLUSIONS: The video-STAT yields reliable scores that seem to be valid measures of stroke preparedness.
Authors: Bernadette Boden-Albala; Dorothy F Edwards; Shauna St Clair; Jeffrey J Wing; Stephen Fernandez; M Chris Gibbons; Amie W Hsia; Lewis B Morgenstern; Chelsea S Kidwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Dawn O Kleindorfer; Suzanne E Judd; Leslie A McClure; Monika M Safford; J David Rhodes; Mary Cushman; Claudia S Moy; Elsayed Z Soliman; Brett M Kissela; George Howard Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Lewis B Morgenstern; Lara Staub; Wenyaw Chan; Theodore H Wein; L Kay Bartholomew; Mary King; Robert A Felberg; W Scott Burgin; Janet Groff; Susan L Hickenbottom; Kamaldeen Saldin; Andrew M Demchuk; Anjali Kalra; Anupma Dhingra; James C Grotta Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: K A Schulman; J A Berlin; W Harless; J F Kerner; S Sistrunk; B J Gersh; R Dubé; C K Taleghani; J E Burke; S Williams; J M Eisenberg; J J Escarce Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-02-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lewis B Morgenstern; Melinda A Smith; Brisa N Sánchez; Devin L Brown; Darin B Zahuranec; Nelda Garcia; Kevin A Kerber; Lesli E Skolarus; William J Meurer; James F Burke; Eric E Adelman; Jonggyu Baek; Lynda D Lisabeth Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Lewis B Morgenstern; Nicole R Gonzales; Katherine E Maddox; Devin L Brown; Asha P Karim; Nina Espinosa; Lemuel A Moyé; Jennifer K Pary; James C Grotta; Lynda D Lisabeth; Kathleen M Conley Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lesli E Skolarus; Marc A Zimmerman; Sarah Bailey; Mackenzie Dome; Jillian B Murphy; Christina Kobrossi; Stephan U Dombrowski; James F Burke; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 5.501