nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.05.2012 | Brief Communication

Reliability and validity of the Portuguese version of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0)

verfasst von: Rui Soles Gonçalves, João Neves Gil, Luís Manuel Cavalheiro, Rui Dias Costa, Pedro Lopes Ferreira

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 4/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To test the reliability and validity of the Portuguese version of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0).

Methods

Two samples (N = 448 and N = 50) of stroke patients attending physical therapy were evaluated. The Portuguese versions of the SIS 2.0 and Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment (CMSA), and a set of individual patient characteristics were the measures used.

Results

Reliability was good with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.83 to 0.96, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.70 and 0.95 for the SIS 2.0 domains. Construct validity was supported by 6 predefined hypotheses involving expected correlations between SIS 2.0 domains, CMSA dimensions and age. An additional predefined hypothesis was also confirmed, with subjects without complications during hospitalization obtaining significantly higher scores in 7 of the 8 SIS 2.0 domains (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The Portuguese SIS 2.0 evidenced suitable psychometric characteristics in terms of reliability and validity.

Melo, T. P., & Ferro, J. M. (2003). Stroke units and stroke services in Portugal. Cerebrovascular Disease, 15(Suppl 1), 21–22.CrossRef

Truelsen, T., Piechowski-Jozwiak, B., Bonita, R., Mathers, C., Bogousslavsky, J., & Boysen, G. (2006). Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: A review of available data. European Journal of Paediatric Neurolog, 13, 581–598.CrossRef

Carod-Artal, F. J., & Egido, J. A. (2009). Quality of life after stroke: The importance of a good recovery. Cerebrovascular Disease, 27(Suppl 1), 204–214.CrossRef

Wolfe, C. D. (2000). The impact of stroke. British Medical Bulletin, 56, 275–286.PubMedCrossRef

Beaton, D. E., & Schemitsch, E. (2003). Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clinics Orthopedic, 413, 90–105.CrossRef

Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J.,& Jones D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 2:i–iv, 1–74.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Gowland, C., Stratford, P., Ward, M., Moreland, J., Torresin, W., Van Hullenaar, S., et al. (1993). Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment. Stroke, 24, 58–63.PubMedCrossRef

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Fermanian, J. (1984). Measuring agreement between 2 observers: A quantitative case. Revue d’épidémiologie et de santé publique, 32, 408–413.PubMed

11.

Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Min Lai, S., & 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.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Edwards, B., & O’Connell, B. (2003). Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample. Quality of Life Research, 12, 1127–1135.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Geyh, S., Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2009). Evaluation of the German translation of the Stroke Impact Scale using Rasch analysis. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 978–995.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Duncan, P. W., Reker, D. M., Horner, R. D., Samsa, G. P., Hoenig, H., LaClair, B. J., et al. (2002). Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale. Clinics Rehabilitation, 16, 493–505.CrossRef

15.

Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Tyler, D., Perera, S., Reker, D. M., & Studenski, S. (2002). Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 33, 2593–2599.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Reliability and validity of the Portuguese version of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0)
verfasst von: Rui Soles Gonçalves
João Neves Gil
Luís Manuel Cavalheiro
Rui Dias Costa
Pedro Lopes Ferreira
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2012
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9977-5

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2012

Can quality or quality-of-life be defined?

Erratum to: Impaired health status and care dependency in patients with advanced COPD or chronic heart failure

Influence of chronic diseases on long-term change in physical health: a consultation–survey linkage cohort study in general practice

Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review

Changes in drug use are associated with health-related quality of life improvements among methadone maintenance patients with HIV/AIDS

Psychometric properties of instruments to measure the quality of end-of-life care and dying for long-term care residents with dementia