Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the Exercise Preference Questionnaire(stroke).
Lívia C G Caetano, Luci F Teixeira-Salmela, Giane A R Samora and 1 others
PMID 28716366WHAT IT FOUND
The Brazilian Portuguese stroke exercise preference questionnaire was usable and mostly consistent across repeat answers, but items about instructions and planning were less dependable.
It can help ask patients what exercise settings they prefer, not show an exercise program works.
Key findings
01The adapted questionnaire was tested with 101 individuals with stroke, and its preference items had a consistency value of 0.82, above the 0.70 value the paper set as optimal.
02When 50 participants were asked again within seven days, repeat-answer stability values ranged from 0.35 to 0.95, and the paper treated values below 0.40 as poor.
03Stroke participants and health professionals agreed more than 80% of the time that the questionnaire was clear, answerable, and well formatted.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only people who could walk independently, had no cognitive impairment, and could answer without communication difficulties were included, so the results do not show how the questionnaire works for more disabled or cognitively impaired stroke survivors. Many people from the recruitment list were excluded or did not attend, so the sample may not represent all stroke survivors in Brazil. The study was done in a Brazilian city with many participants from public health services, so local service context may limit generalizability. Test-retest reliability was poor for items 10 and 15, which are related to planning and instructions, so answers to those items should be read cautiously. Items 9 and 19 had low communality in factor analysis, and the authors kept them while advising caution in clinical interpretation. The third section was not tested for reliability, and the questionnaire has no final score. Content validity was lower for items 6, 11, 14, 15, and 18, although only two of eight experts considered them little relevant. This is a measurement-properties study, not a trial of exercise or of using preferences to change care.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that using this questionnaire improves exercise adherence or stroke outcomes. It tested whether the adapted questionnaire is clear and consistent, not whether preference-guided exercise programs work.