Objective: To determine the validity, repeatability and stability of the Motor Readiness Questionnaire for Stroke (MRQS).
Subjects: One hundred and eighty-seven stroke patients (160 men; 143 white; mean age=57.59±8.8; mean time since stroke=10.19±7.3 months) at a rehabilitation hospital in the Midwestern United States.
Design: Prospective survey, in which the MRQS was administered to each patient once. The MRQS was also administered to 25 subjects twice to measure test-retest reliability.
Main outcome measures: The MRQS, a transtheoretical model-based, 23-item self-report survey was administered to examine reliability (internal consistency and stability), validity (concurrent) and factor structure.
Results: The MRQS showed good reliability for its component scales and total score, and the previously identified MRQS factor structure was confirmed. Stability and concurrent validity were also high.
Conclusions: The MRQS appears to adequately capture stroke patients’ motivational readiness and has ability to discriminate between individuals in various stages of readiness. MRQS scores appear to be repeatable over time. However, more research is needed before the MRQS is used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: toward an integrative model change. J Consult Clin Psychol1983; 21: 390-395.
2.
2 Marcus BH, Forsyth LH. The challenge of behaviour change. Med Health RI1997; 80: 300-302.
3.
3 Prochaska JO, Velcier WF. The transtheoretical model of health behaviour change. Am J Health Promot1997; 12:38-38.
4.
4 Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS et al. Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behaviour change. Res Q Exerc Sport1992; 63:60-66.
5.
5 Bandura A. Editorial. Am J Health Promot1997; 12:8-10.
6.
6 Prochaska JO, Norcross JC, Fowler JL, Follick, MJ, Abrams DB. Attendance and outcome in a work site weight control program: Processes and stages of change as process and predictor variables. Add Behav1992; 11: 5-45.
7.
7 Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Harlow LL, Rossi JS, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of change and HIV prevention: A review. Health Educ Q1994; 21: 471-486.
8.
8 Marcus BH, Owen N. Motivational readiness, self-efficacy, and decision making for exercise. J Appl Soc Psychol1992; 22:3-16.
10 Kerns RD, Rosenberg R, Jamison RN, Caudill MA, Haythornthwaite I. Readiness to adopt a self-management approach to chronic pain: the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire. Pain1997; 12: 327-334.
11.
11 Bombardier CH, Heinemann AW. The construct validity of the readiness to change questionnaire for persons with TBI. J Head Trauma Rehabil2000; 15: 696-709.
12.
12 Bombardier CH, Rimmele CT. Alcohol use and readiness to change after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988; 12: 1110-1115.
13.
13 Duncan PW. Synthesis of intervention trails to improve motor recovery following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil1997; 3:1-20.
14.
14 Page, SJ, Sisto S, Johnston MJ, Levine P. Modified constraint-induced therapy after subacute stroke: A preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2002; 16: 290-295.
15.
15 Werner C, Von Frankenberg S, Treig T, Konrad M, Hesse S. Treadmill training with partial body weight support and an electromechanical gait trainer for restoration of gait in subacute stroke patients: a randomized crossover study. Stroke2002; 33: 2895-2901.
16.
16 Page SJ, Levine P, Sisto S, Bond Q, Johnston MV. Stroke patients' and therapists' opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy. Clin Rehabil2002; 16:55-60.
17.
17 Schaumburg S, Pierce S, Gaffney K, Gershkoff A. Constraint-induced therapy: moving research into practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, Orlando, FL, 16 October, 1999.
18.
18 Prochaska JO, Norcross JC, Fowler JL, Follick MJ, Abrams DB. Attendance and outcome in a work site weight control program: processes and stages of change as process and predictor variables. Addict Behav1992; 11:5-45.
19.
19 Maclean N, Pound P, Wolfe C, Rudd A. The concept of patient motivation: a qualitative analysis of stroke professionals' attitudes. Stroke2002; 33: 444-448.
20.
20 Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini-Mental State Exam. J Clin Psychiatry1987; 48: 314-318.
22 Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Semik P. Measurement properties of the Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test and improvement patterns during rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil2000; 15: 637-655.
23.
23 Anderson EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2000; 81: S15-S20.
24.
24 Page, SJAssessing stroke patients' readiness to begin motor rehabilitation: pilot results of a new questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 1492-1492 (abstract).
25.
25 Marcus BH, Rakowski W, Rossi JS. Assessing motivational readiness and decision making for exercise. Health Psychol1992; 11: 257-261.
26.
26 Marcus BH, Simkin LH. The transtheoretical model: applications to exercise behaviour. Med Sci Sports Exerc1993; 26: 1400-1404.
27.
27 Peterson TR, Aldana SG. Improving exercise behaviour: an application of the stages of change model in a worksite setting. Am J Health Promot1999; 13: 229-232.
28.
28 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
29.
29 Cattell RB. The scientific use of factor analysis.New York: Plenum, 1978.
