4.2 Article

The Wayfinding Questionnaire: A clinically useful self-report instrument to identify navigation complaints in stroke patients

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION
Volume 29, Issue 7, Pages 1042-1061

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2017.1347098

Keywords

Stroke; spatial navigation; questionnaire; validation studies; rehabilitation

Funding

  1. Meerwaarde grant by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [840.11.006]
  2. Veni grant by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [451-12-004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Post-stroke navigation complaints are frequent (about 30%) and intervention is possible, but there is no assessment instrument to identify patients with navigation complaints. We therefore studied the clinical validity of the Wayfinding Questionnaire (WQ) in a cross-sectional study with 158 chronic stroke patients and 131 healthy controls. Patients with low (more navigation complaints) versus normal WQ scores were compared for demographics, stroke characteristics, emotional and cognitive complaints, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Actual navigation performance of 78 patients was assessed in a virtual reality setting. Effect sizes (d) were calculated. WQ responses (22 items) of stroke patients were compared with those of controls (discriminant validity). Results showed that patients with a low WQ score (n = 49, 32%) were more often women (p = 0.013) and less educated (p = 0.004), reported more cognitive complaints (d = 0.69), more emotional problems (d = 0.38 and 0.52), and lower HRQoL (d = 0.40 and 0.45) and, last but not least, performed worse on the navigation ability tasks (d = 0.23-0.80). Patients scored lower than controls on 21/22 WQ items, predominantly with small to medium effect sizes (d = 0.20-0.51). We conclude that the WQ is valid as a measure of navigation complaints in stroke patients, and thus strongly advocate its use in stroke care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available