The Korean Version of the Cognitive Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (K-CASP): A reliability and validity study

9Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To develop the Korean version of the Cognitive Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (K-CASP) and to evaluate the test reliability and validity of the K-CASP in stroke patients. Methods The original CASP was translated into Korean, back-translated into English, then reviewed and compared with the original version. Thirty-three stroke patients were assessed independently by two examiners using the K-CASP twice, with a one-day interval, for a total of four test results. To evaluate the reliability of the K-CASP, intra-class correlation coefficients were used. Pearson correlations were calculated and simple regression analyses performed with the Korean version of Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) and the aphasia quotient (AQ) to assess the validity. Results The mean score was 24.42±9.47 (total score 36) for the K-CASP and 21.50±7.01 (total score 30) for the K-MMSE. The inter-rater correlation coefficients of the K-CASP were 0.992 on the first day and 0.995 on the second day. The intra-rater correlation coefficients of the K-CASP were 0.997 for examiner 1 and 0.996 for examiner 2. In the Pearson correlation analysis, the K-CASP score significantly correlated with the K-MMSE score (r=0.825, p < 0.001). The coefficients of determination (r2) of the AQ were 0.586 for the K-MMSE and 0.513 for the K-CASP in the simple regression analysis. Conclusion The K-CASP is a reliable and valid instrument for cognitive dysfunction screening in post-stroke patients. It is more applicable than other cognitive assessment tools in stroke patients with aphasia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, K. H., Lee, H. W., Park, K. B., Lee, J. Y., Cho, A. R., Oh, H. M., & Park, J. H. (2017). The Korean Version of the Cognitive Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (K-CASP): A reliability and validity study. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41(3), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2017.41.3.362

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free