An initial investigation of the reliability and validity of the Compensatory Cognitive Strategies Scale

ABSTRACT

Although many cognitive performance tests and self-reported cognitive concerns scales have been used to evaluate cognitive functioning, fewer measures assess the use of compensatory cognitive strategies for daily activities among those experiencing mild levels of cognitive impairment. The Compensatory Cognitive Strategies Scale was developed to measure frequency of self-reported cognitive strategies to decrease distractions, organise and sequence activities, and to utilise newly available computer aids to assist memory among those with multiple sclerosis (MS). Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal consistency reliability, was .89 and .90 in two different samples. Concurrent validity was supported by the total score’s moderate correlation with the MMQ-Strategy Scale (r_s = .67) and by a statistically significant increase in total scores for those who had participated in an intervention designed to improve their cognitive abilities. Correlations were stronger with another strategy measure than with measures of other constructs such as health-promoting behaviours, thus supporting the scales convergent versus divergent validity. These initial findings suggest that the Compensatory Cognitive Strategies Scale may be useful to both researchers and clinicians working to build compensatory strategies for day-to-day functioning among those with mild cognitive impairment.

KEYWORDS:

• Cognitive strategies measure
• multiple sclerosis

Acknowledgements

The authors would also like to acknowledge Vicki K. Kullberg for project management, Nicki Gloris for data entry and checking, and Francisco Perez, Ph.D., Ed Hammer, Ph.D. and Betsy Crowe, Ph.D. for expert review of this scale.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported in part with grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Nursing Research, to Alexa Stuifbergen and Heather Becker [grant number R01 –NR014362]. Editorial support was provided by John Bellquist, Ph.D., Cain Center for Nursing Research and the Center for Transdisciplinary Collaborative Research in Self-Management Science (P30, NR015335) at The University of Texas at Austin School of Nursing.