Content Validity and Satisfaction With a Stroke Caregiver Intervention Program

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Establishing evidence of content validity and satisfaction is an integral part of intervention research. The purpose of this article is to describe content validity and satisfaction relative to the Telephone Assessment and Skill-Building Kit (TASK), an 8-week follow-up program based on individualized assessment of stroke caregiver needs. DESIGN AND METHODS: The TASK intervention enables caregivers to develop skills based on assessment of their own needs. During the development of the TASK program, 10 experts rated the validity of the TASK intervention components for accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, and problem relevance. After incorporating feedback from the experts, a randomized controlled clinical trial was instituted using a convenience sample of 40 stroke caregivers to determine satisfaction (usefulness, ease of use, and acceptability) with the TASK intervention (n=21) compared with an attention control group (n=19). Data collection occurred between March 2005 and June 2006. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent sample t tests, and content analysis. FINDINGS: Expert ratings on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being strongly agree, provided evidence of content validity (accuracy 4.71, feasibility 4.46, acceptability 4.40, problem relevance 4.67). Caregivers in the TASK group scored significantly higher than the attention control group on all satisfaction measures (usefulness p=.02; ease of use p=.02; acceptability p=.05). Qualitative comments from caregivers provided further evidence of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of content validity and user satisfaction for the TASK intervention relative to an attention control group was found. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The TASK program may be a viable telephone-based program that can be implemented by nurses to support family caregivers during the first few months after stroke survivors are discharged home.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.