SATIS-Stroke

Evidence Reviewed as of before: 15-02-2012
Author(s): Katie Marvin, MSc. PT
Editor(s): Nicol Korner-Bitensky, PhD OT; Annabel McDermott, OT

Purpose

The SATIS-Stroke is a questionnaire that can be used to measure satisfaction with activities and participation among patients with stroke. The questions are tailored to assess the individual’s satisfaction with participation in their everyday activities.

In-Depth Review

Purpose of the measure

The SATIS-Stroke is a questionnaire that can be used to measure satisfaction with activities and participation among patients with stroke. The questions are tailored to assess the individual’s satisfaction with participation in their everyday activities. The SATIS-Stroke can be used with patients with chronic stroke regardless of their age, gender, social status, place of residence, delay since stroke and type of stroke.

The SATIS-Stroke includes 36 items, covering the 9 ICF domains: learning and applying knowledge, general tasks and demands, communication, mobility, self-care, domestic life, interpersonal interactions and relationships, major life areas, and community, social and civic life. The 36 items are sorted and numbered in order of decreasing satisfactory level, meaning that the first item (moving outside your home in any circumstance) requires the highest satisfactory level in order to be performed, whereas the last item (listening to and watching television according to your needs) requires the lowest satisfactory level.

Available versions

There are no alternative versions.

Features of the measure

Items:

There are no actual items to the MTS.

Description of tasks:

The patient is asked to rate their perceived satisfaction in performing each of the following daily activities and life situations using a 4-point scale.

  1. Moving outside your home in any circumstances
  2. Climbing and going downstairs all stages in your home according to your needs
  3. Using knife, fork and spoon in all circumstances
  4. Having a sexual relationship with somebody
  5. Using coins and banknotes in all circumstances
  6. Participating in spoken exchange of information with your entourage
  7. To supplement administrative documents in all circumstances
  8. Washing your hair according to your needs
  9. Taking a bath or your shower according to your needs
  10. Undresssing to use the toilet and redressing in your home or outside of it
  11. Entering and exiting home your home according to your needs
  12. Participating in arts and culture (cinema, theatre, etc.)
  13. Reaching objects in your near space
  14. Dressing and undressing in all circumstances and according to your needs
  15. Managing your income in all circumstances
  16. Getting clothes out of the closet
  17. Using storage spaces in your house
  18. Participating in spousal relationships
  19. Ensuring that your rights are respected
  20. Carrying out your personal hygiene according to your needs
  21. Asking for help in an emergency situation
  22. Reading and understanding a document in all circumstances
  23. Moving inside your home
  24. Managing your pain in all circumstances
  25. Using the telephone at home according to your needs
  26. Maintaining emotional relationships
  27. Expressing oneself to someone
  28. Having urinary continence in your home and outside of it
  29. Participating in food and drink preparation in all circumstances
  30. Opening and closing doors in your home
  31. Co-operating with your entourage
  32. Being aware of what surrounds you
  33. Participating in ceremonies (marriage, gathering family, etc)
  34. Choosing appropriate clothes
  35. Getting feelings across
  36. Listening to and watching television according to your needs

Description of tasks:

  • There are no tasks for this measure

Scoring and Score Interpretation:

The 36 items are sorted and numbered in order of decreasing satisfactory level, meaning that the first item requires the most amount of satisfaction in order to perform the task, whereas the last item requires the least amount of satisfaction in order to perform the task.

Perceived satisfaction is rated on a 4-point scale.

  1. Very dissatisfied
  2. Dissatisfied
  3. Satisfied
  4. Very Satisfied

Scores range from 0 to 105 with a higher score indicating greater perceived satisfaction with tasks.

Information on score interpretation is not yet available.

Time:

Not reported.

Training requirements:

No training requirements have been reported.

Subscales:

None reported.

Equipment:

None required.

Alternative forms of the SATIS-Stroke

There are no alternative forms of the SATIS-Stroke.

Client suitability

Can be used with:

  • Patients with chronic stroke regardless of their age, gender, social status, place of residence, delay since stroke and type of stroke (Bouffioulx et al., 2008).

Should not be used with:

  • Patients with cognitive deficits, as these patients were excluded from the original validation study (Bouffioulx et al., 2008).

In what languages is the measure available?

English

French

Summary

What does the tool measure? Patients’ perceived satisfaction with activities and participation.
What types of clients can the tool be used for? Clients with stroke.
Is this a screening or assessment tool? Assessment tool.
Time to administer Not reported.
Versions None reported.
Other Languages English and French.
Measurement Properties
Reliability

Test-retest:

One study examined the test-retest reliability of the SATIS-Stroke and found excellent test-retest reliability.

Validity

Concurrent:

One study examined the concurrent validity between the SATIS-Stroke and the Barthel Index and found excellent correlation between the two measures.

Floor/Ceiling Effects No studies have examined the floor or ceiling effects of the SATIS-Stroke.
Does the tool detect change in patients? One study examined the ability of the SATIS-Stroke to detect change and reported that the SATIS-Stroke had a large ability to detect change from the acute to chronic phase of stroke.
Acceptability Results support preliminary validation of the psychometric properties, however further research is needed before the tool is ready for use clinically.
Feasibility The administration of the SATIS-Stroke is easy and simple to administer.
How to obtain the tool? Information on the SATIS-Stroke can be obtained from the article by Bouffioulx, Arnould and Thonnard (2008).

Psychometric Properties

Overview

A literature search was conducted to identify all relevant publications on the psychometric properties of the SATIS-Stroke and revealed only the initial validation study. Results support preliminary validation of the psychometric properties, however further research is needed before the tool is ready for clinical use.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Floor or ceiling effects of the SATIS-Stroke have not been examined.

Reliability

Internal consistency:

Internal consistency of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Test-retest:

Bouffioulx, Arnould and Thonnard (2008) examined the test-retest reliability of the SATIS-Stroke in 101 patients with stroke. The SATIS-Stroke was administered two times, with an interval of 32 days between each administration. Excellent test-retest reliability was found, as calculated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC=0.98, p<0.001).

Intra-rater:

Intra-rater reliability of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Inter-rater:

Inter-rater reliability of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Validity

Content:

Content validity of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Criterion:

Concurrent:

Bouffioulx, Arnould and Thonnard (2008) investigated the concurrent validity between the SATIS-Stroke and the Barthel Index. An excellent (r=0.74, p<0.05) correlation was found between the two measures. Results from this study suggest that independence in activity and life situations is related to patient ratings of perceived satisfaction.

Predictive:

Predictive validity of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Construct:

Convergent/Discriminant:

The convergent or discriminant of the SATIS-Stroke validity has not been examined.

Known groups.

The known groups validity of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Sensitivity/ Specificity:

The sensitivity or specificity of the SATIS-Stroke has not been examined.

Responsiveness

Bouffioulx, Arnould, Vandervelde and Thonnard (2010) examined the responsiveness of the SATIS-Stroke in 45 patients with acute, subacute or chronic stroke. The SATIS-Stroke was administered at 1 week (acute), 3 months (subacute) and six months (chronic) following onset of stroke. The patients were also asked to subjectively rate their perceptions of change in overall functional status at the three time points, which was then used to classify their status as ‘deteriorating’, ‘stable’ or ‘improved’. The SATIS-Stroke was found to have the greatest responsiveness for detecting change in patients’s function from the acute to chronic phase, demonstrating a large effect size (effect size=1.12, standardized response mean=0.62). The SATIS-Stroke was found to be less responsive from the acute to subacute phase (effect size=0.76, standardized response mean 0.59) and from the sub-acute to chronic phase (effect size=0.42, standardized response mean=0.27); however, it may be that less drastic changes in satisfaction may be occurring during these time periods. This study also reviewed the minimal clinically important difference but concluded that further investigate is necessary.

References

  • Bouffioulx, E., Arnould, C. & Thonnard, J-L. (2008). SATIS-Stroke: A satisfaction measure of activities and participation in the actual environment experienced by patients with chronic stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 836-843.
  • Bouffioulx, E., Arnould, C. Vandervelde, L. & Thonnard, J-L. (2010). Changes in satisfaction with activities and participation between acute, post-acute and chronic stroke phases: A responsiveness study of the SATIS-Stroke questionnaire. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42, 944-948.

See The Measure

How to obtain the SATIS-Stroke?

Information on the SATIS-Stroke can be obtained from the Bouffioulx, Arnould and Thonnard (2008) article.

Table of contents
What do you think?