Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 435–443 | Cite as

Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale

  • Keh-Chung Lin
  • Tiffany Fu
  • Ching-Yi WuEmail author
  • Yu-Wei Hsieh
  • Chia-Ling Chen
  • Pei-Chin Lee
Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared the responsiveness and criterion-related validity of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL) for patients after stroke rehabilitation.

Methods

The SIS and SS-QOL, along with five criterion measures—the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the Motor Activity Log, the Functional Independence Measure, the Frenchay Activities Index, and the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale—were administered to 74 patients with stroke before and after a 3-week intervention. Responsiveness was examined using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and standardized response mean (SRM). Criterion-related validity was investigated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ).

Results

Whereas the SS-QOL subscales were nonresponsive to changes, the SIS hand function showed medium responsiveness (SRM = .52, Wilcoxon Z = 4.24, P < .05). Responsiveness of the SIS total also was significantly larger than that of the SS-QOL total (SRM difference, .36; 95% confidence interval, .02–.71). Criterion validity of the SIS hand function was good (ρ = .51–.68; P < .01), but that of the SS-QOL was only fair (ρ = .25–.31; P < .05).

Conclusion

Because the SIS had better overall responsiveness and the SIS hand function showed medium responsiveness and good criterion validity, the SIS appears to be more suited for assessing changes after stroke rehabilitation.

Keywords

Cerebrovascular accident Rehabilitation Outcome measures Psychometrics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Council (NSC-97-2314-B-002-08-MY3, NSC-97-2314-B-182-004-MY3, NSC-97-2811-B-002-101, NSC-98-2811-B-002-003, and NSC-98-2811-B-002-073) and the National Health Research Institutes (NHRI-EX97-9742PI, and NHRI-EX99-9920PI).

References

  1. 1.
    Saxena, S. K. (2006). Prevalence and correlates of cognitive impairment in stroke patients in a rehabilitation setting. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 10, 37–47.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephens, S., Kenny, R. A., Rowan, E., Kalaria, R. N., Bradbury, M., Pearce, R., et al. (2005). Association between mild vascular cognitive impairment and impaired activities of daily living in older stroke survivors without dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 103–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salter, K. L., Moses, M. B., Foley, N. C., & Teasell, R. W. (2008). Health-related quality of life after stroke: What are we measuring? International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 31, 111–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schepers, V. P. M., Ketelaar, M., van de Port, I. G. L., Visser-Meily, J. M. A., & Lindeman, E. (2007). Comparing contents of functional outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 221–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin, K. C., Chang, Y. F., Wu, C. Y., & Chen, Y. A. (2009). Effects of constraint-induced therapy versus bilateral arm training on motor performance, daily functions and quality of life in stroke survivors. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 23, 441–448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, K. C., Wu, C. Y., Liu, J. S., Chen, Y. T., & Hsu, C. J. (2009). Constraint-induced therapy versus dose-matched control intervention to improve motor ability, basic/extended daily functions and quality of life in stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 23, 160–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czechowsky, D., & Hill, M. D. (2002). Neurological outcome and quality of life after stroke due to vertebral artery dissection. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 13, 192–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erban, P., Woertgen, C., Luerding, R., Bogdahn, U., Schlachetzki, F., & Horn, M. (2006). Long-term outcome after hemicraniectomy for space occupying right hemispheric MCA infarction. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 108, 384–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., & Laster, L. J. (1999). The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0: Evaluation of reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30, 2131–2140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Lai, S. M., & Perera, S. (2003). Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 950–963.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duncan, P. W., Jorgensen, H. S., & Wade, D. T. (2000). Outcome measures in acute stroke trials. A systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke, 31, 1429–1438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams, L. S., Weinberger, M., Harris, L. E., Clark, D. O., & Biller, J. (1999). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30, 1362–1369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carod-Artal, F. J., Coral, L. F., Trizotto, D. S., & Moreira, C. M. (2008). The Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: Evaluation of acceptability, reliability and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke, 39, 2477–2484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duncan, P., Reker, D., Kwon, S., Lai, S. M., Studenski, S., Perera, S., et al. (2005). Measuring stroke impact with the Stroke Impact Scale. Telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Medical Care, 43, 507–515.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwon, S., Duncan, P., Studenski, S., Perera, S., Lai, S. M., & Reker, D. (2006). Measuring stroke impact with SIS: Construct validity of SIS telephone administration. Quality of Life Research, 15, 367–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muus, I., Williams, L. S., & Ringsberg, K. C. (2007). Validation of the stroke specific quality of life scale (SS-QOL): Test of reliability and validity of the Danish version (SS-QOL-DK). Clinical Rehabilitation, 21, 620–627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ewert, T., & Stucki, G. (2007). Validity of the SS-QOL in Germany and in survivors of hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 21, 161–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaikh, N., Marin, J. M., Casey, J. R., Pichichero, M. E., Wald, E. R., Colborn, D. K., et al. (2009). Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatrics, 124, e557–e563.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life—the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taub, E., Miller, N. E., Novack, T. A., Cook, E. W., 3rd, Fleming, W. C., Nepomuceno, C. S., et al. (1993). Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 347–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCombe Waller, S., & Whitall, J. (2008). Bilateral arm training: Why and who benefits? NeuroRehabilitation, 23, 29–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolf, S. L., Winstein, C. J., Miller, J. P., Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Morris, D., et al. (2006). Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: The EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 296, 2095–2104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin, K. C., Chen, Y. A., Chen, C. L., Wu, C. Y., & Chang, Y. A. (2010). The effects of bilateral arm training on motor control and functional performance in chronic stroke: A randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 24, 42–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barnes, M. P., Dobkin, B. H., & Bogousslavsky, J. (2009). Recovery after stroke. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brunnstrom, S. (1970). Movement therapy in hemiplegia. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bohannon, R., & Smith, M. (1987). Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy, 67, 206–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fugl-Meyer, A. R., Jaasko, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975). The poststroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 7, 13–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1993). The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1991. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 72, 33–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holbrook, M., & Skilbeck, C. E. (1983). An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age and Ageing, 12, 166–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nouri, F. M., & Lincoln, N. B. (1987). An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation, 1, 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hays, R. D., Anderson, R., & Revicki, D. (1998). Chapter 10: Assessing Reliability and Validity of Measurement in Clinical Trials. In M. J. Staquet, R. D. Hays, & P. M. Fayers (Eds.), Quality of life assessments in clinical trials (pp. 169–182). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kotsis, S. V., Chung, K. C., & Arbor, A. (2005). Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire in carpal tunnel surgery. Journal of Hand Surgery, 30A, 81–86.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yeo, D., Mantel, H., & Liu, T. P. (1999). Bootstrap variance estimation for the National Population Health Survey. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. Baltimore: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stratford, P. W., & Kennedy, D. M. (2004). Does parallel item content on WOMAC’s pain and function subscales limit its ability to detect change in functional status? BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 5, 17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cano, S. J., O’Connor, R. J., Thompson, A. J., & Hobart, J. C. (2006). Exploring disability rating scale responsiveness II: Do more response options help? Neurology, 67, 2056–2059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Freeman, J. A., Langdon, D. W., McLellan, D. L., Greenwood, R. J., et al. (2001). Evidence-based measurement. Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology, 57, 639–644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moran, L. A., Guyatt, G. H., & Norman, G. R. (2001). Establishing the minimal number of items for a responsive, valid, health-related quality of life instrument. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 571–579.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kong, K. H., & Yang, S. Y. (2006). Health-related quality of life among chronic stroke survivors attending a rehabilitation clinic. Singapore Medical Journal, 47, 213–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Berg, A., Lonnqvist, J., Palomaki, H., & Kaste, M. (2009). Assessment of depression after stroke: A comparison of different screening instruments. Stroke, 40, 523–529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keh-Chung Lin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tiffany Fu
    • 1
  • Ching-Yi Wu
    • 3
    Email author
  • Yu-Wei Hsieh
    • 1
  • Chia-Ling Chen
    • 4
  • Pei-Chin Lee
    • 5
  1. 1.The School of Occupational Therapy, College of MedicineNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.The Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationNational Taiwan University HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.The Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Clinical Behavioral ScienceChang Gung UniversityKwei-shan, TaoyuanTaiwan
  4. 4.The Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationChang Gung Memorial HospitalTaoyuanTaiwan
  5. 5.The Department of Occupational TherapyChung Shan Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations