Abstract
Given the importance of apathy for stroke, we felt it was time to scrutinize the commonly used Starkstein Apathy Scale (SAS) for psychometric evidence that it is fit for this purpose. The objectives were to: (i) estimate the extent to which the SAS items fit a hierarchical continuum of the Rasch Model; and (ii) estimate the strength of the relationships between the Rasch analysed SAS and converging constructs related to stroke outcomes.
Methods Data on 238 people with stroke (mean age=63.1 years (SD=12.1) women=37.4%) from a clinical trial of a community-based intervention targeting participation were available at 5 time points yielding 856 SAS questionnaires. SAS has 14 items, rated on a 4-point scale with higher values indicating more apathy. Psychometric properties were tested using Rasch partial-credit model, correlation, and regression. The construct was modeled as motivation with items rescored as high is better.
Results Rasch analysis indicated that the response options were disordered for 8/14 items, pointing to unreliability in the interpretation of the response options; they were consequently reduced from 4 to 3. Only 9/14 items fit the Rasch model and therefore suitable for creating a total score. The new rSAS was deemed unidimensional (residual correlations: < 0.3), reasonably reliable (person separation index: 0.74), with item-locations uniform across time, age, sex, and education. However, 30% of scores were >2 SD above the standardized mean but only 2/9 items covered this range (construct mistargeting).
Apathy (rSAS/SAS) was correlated weakly with anxiety/depression and uncorrelated with physical capacity. Regression showed that the effect of apathy on participation and health perception was similar for rSAS/SAS versions: R2 participation measures ranged from 0.11 to 0.29; R2 for health perception was ∼0.25.
When placed on the same scale (0-42), rSAS value was 6.5 units lower than SAS value with minimal floor/ceiling effects. Estimated change over time was identical (0.12 units/month) which was not substantial (1.44 units/year) but greater than expected assuming no change (t: 3.6 and 2.4).
Conclusion The retained items of the rSAS targeted behaviours more than beliefs and results support the rSAS as a robust measure of apathy in people with chronic stroke.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project was made possible from funding by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives initiative.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board (MUHC-REB) has approved the original study and the use of the data for this secondary analysis. MUHC Centre for Applied Ethics 5100, boul. de Maisonneuve Ouest, 5th floor, Office 576 Montreal, Quebec, H4A 3T2 telephone: 514-934-1934 ext-34323
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Academic researchers interested in obtaining the data can make a request to the corresponding author. A research proposal would need to be submitted to our Research Ethics Board and a data sharing agreement would be required between the collaborating institutions.
