The measure of stroke environment (MOSE): development and validation of the MOSE in post-stroke populations with and without aphasia

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this paper is to present the development and psychometric properties of a new environmental measure that identifies barriers and facilitators in receptivity, physical environment and communication for post-stroke populations, including survivors with aphasia.

Methods. The Measure of Stroke Environment (MOSE) was developed using information from semi-structured interviews and three pilot studies. Reliability and validity were assessed in 43 post-stroke participants.

Results. The MOSE contains 47 items across 33 questions in three domains (receptivity, physical environment, communication). Internal consistency reliability was high (.83 to .85) across each domain and over the entire assessment (.91). Convergent validity showed moderate correlation with the Stroke Impact Scale (.33 to .37), the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (-.31 to -.46) and the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (.55 to .61). Persons with aphasia had significantly lower scores on the communication domain. Stroke survivors with (26% overall difficulty) and without aphasia (31% overall difficulty) continue to experience difficulty ≥ 2 years post-stroke.

Discussion. The MOSE offers a brief, reliable and valid assessment of environmental barriers and facilitators to participation for post-stroke survivors reintegrating into their communities. Stroke survivors with very mild deficits continue to experience barriers from the environment many years post-stroke. These barriers are not typically identified during the rehabilitation process but persist post-reintegration.

Conclusion. The MOSE is able to determine how frequently a stroke survivor faces challenges in their environment and how that impacts his or her participation.

Keywords:

• Stroke
• Environment
• Communication
• Receptivity
• Recovery
• Participation

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. David Gray and Holly Hollingsworth for their assistance and expertise in providing an approach to development of this instrument, Dr. Susan A. Goette for supporting manuscript revisions and Ms. Valerie Mandoske for assistance with testing.

Funding

This work was supported by Washington University School of Medicine, Occupational Therapy Development Grant (Lisa Connor, PI).