nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.10.2007 | Original Paper

The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provided valid, reliable, and responsive score estimates of functioning and well-being during the first year of recovery from stroke

verfasst von: Patrick J. Doyle, Malcolm R. McNeil, James E. Bost, Katherine B. Ross, Julie L. Wambaugh, William D. Hula, Joseph M. Mikolic

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS).

Study design

A prospective cohort of stroke survivors were assessed at 3 (T1, T2), 6 (T3), and 12 (T4) months post onset (MPO) of stroke. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between T1 and T2 scale scores. Convergent validity was evaluated by calculating Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between T1 BOSS, Stroke Impact Scale and MOS SF-36 scale scores assessing similar health concepts. Responsiveness was evaluated using a repeated measures ANOVA and the linear trend test in the full study sample and by calculating standardized response means (SRM) and a probability of change statistic, \( \hat{p} \) between T1, T3, and T4 scale scores in participants demonstrating change on external criteria.

Results

ICCs ranged from 0.78 to 0.94. Pearson coefficients ranged from −0.57 to −0.86. Moderate to high responsiveness estimates were obtained for 9 of 12 subscales with SRM (\( \hat{p} \)) values ranging from .497 (.690) to 1.161 (.877). Composite scale SRM (\( \hat{p} \)) values ranged from .661 (.746) to 1.192 (.883).

Conclusions

The BOSS provided valid and reliable score estimates that were responsive to positive changes in functioning and well-being during the first year of recovery from stroke.

A standardized performance-based measure requiring auditory comprehension of increasingly longer sentences comprised of from 3 (e.g., touch the red square) to 8 (e.g., put the little red square to the left of the big green circle) non-redundant linguistic elements.

Bowling A. (1997). Measuring health (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Albrecht, G. L., & Higgins, P. (1977). Rehabilitation success: The interrelationships of multiple criteria. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 36–45.CrossRef

Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 977–988.CrossRef

Samsa, G. P., & Matchar, D. B. (2004). How strong is the relationship between functional status and quality of life among persons with stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 41(3A), 279–282.CrossRef

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions among adults: United States. Morbitity Mortality Weekly Report, 50, 120–125.

Bonita, R. (1992). Epidemiology of stroke. Lancet, 339, 342–344.CrossRefPubMed

Kalache, A., & Aboderin, I. (1995). Stroke: The global burden. Health Policy Planning, 10, 1–21.CrossRef

Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M., Mikolic, J. M., Prieto, L. R., Hula, W. D., Lustig, A. P., et al. (2004). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provided valid and reliable score estimates of functioning and well-being in stroke survivors with and without communication disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(10), 997–1007.CrossRefPubMed

van Straten, A., de Haan, R., Limburg, M., Schuling, J., Bossuyt, P. M., & van den Bos, G. A. M. (1997). A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the sickness impact profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke, 28(11), 2155–2161.PubMed

10.

Duncan, P., Lai, S. M., Wallace, D., Embretson, S., Johnson, D., Studenski, S. (1999). Stroke impact scale: Version 2.0, 1–16. Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas Medical Center. Ref Type: Generic.

11.

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(7), 1362–1369.PubMed

12.

World Health Organization. (2001). ICF: International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

13.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychology Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRef

14.

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.PubMed

15.

Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Hula, W. D., & Mikolic, J. M. (2003). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS): Validating patient-reported communication difficulty and associated psychological distress in stroke survivors. Aphasiology, 17(3), 291–304.CrossRef

16.

Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandec, B. (1997). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston.

17.

Park, G. H., McNeil, M. R., & Tompkins, C. A. (2000). Reliability of the five-item revised token test for individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology, 14(5/6), 527–535.CrossRef

18.

Van Sweiten, J. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Visser, M. C., Schouten, H. A., & Van Gijn, J. (1988). Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke, 19, 604–607.

19.

Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barressi, B. (2001). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippencott, Williams & Wilkins.

20.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archiv für Psychologie, 140, 5–55.

21.

Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Bode, R., Perera, S., & DeRosa, J. (2003). Stroke impact scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function. Neurology, 60, 291–296.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The Medical outcomes study approach. Durham: Duke University Press.

24.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E. Jr., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.CrossRefPubMed

25.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Lu, J. F. R., & Donald-Sherbourne, C. (1994). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lai, S.-M., Perera, S., Duncan, P. W., & Bode, R. (2003). Physical and social functioning after stroke; comparison of the stroke impact scale and short form-36. Stroke, 34, 488–493.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hays, R. D., Hahn, H., & Marshall, G. (2002). Use of the SF-36 and other health-related quality of life measures to assess persons with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 83(2), S4–S9.CrossRef

28.

Riazi, A., Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Fitzpatrick, R., Freeman, J. A., et al. (2003). Using the SF-36 to compare the health impact of multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease with normal population health profiles. Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 74, 710–714.CrossRef

29.

Anderson, C., Laubscher, S., & Burns, R. (1996) Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke, 27(10), 1812–1816.PubMed

30.

Ferguson, R. J., Robinson, A. B., & Splaine, M. (2002). Use of reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 11, 509–516.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

32.

Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2, 221–226.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Lydick, E. G., & Epstein, R. S. (1996). Clinical significance of quality of life data. In: B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 461–465). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

34.

Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 395–407.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Husted, J. A., Cook, D. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Zou, G. Y. (2005). Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 14, 1545–1552.

37.

Mann, G. (2001). Review of reports on relative prevalence of swallowing disorders after acute stroke. Dysphagia, 17, 81–82.CrossRef

38.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Psychology Bulletin, 47, 1105–1117.

39.

Larson, R. W. (1987). On the independence of positive and negative affect within hour to hour experience. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 145–156.CrossRef

40.

Guyatt, G. H., Walter, S., & Norman, G. R. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Disease, 40, 171–178.CrossRef

41.

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., & Wright, J. G. (2001). A taxonomy for responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 1204–1217. Ref Type: Journal (Full).CrossRefPubMed

42.

Wright, J. G., & Young, N. L. (1997). A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 239–246.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Rapkin, B. D., & Fisher, K. (1992). Personal goals of older adults: Issues in assessment and prediction. Psychology and Aging, 7, 127–137.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Emmons, R. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.CrossRef

45.

Ditto, P. H., Druley, J. A., Moore, K. A., & Danks, J. H. (1996). Fates worse than death: The role of valued life activities in health-state evaluations. Health Psychology, 15(5), 332–343.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provided valid, reliable, and responsive score estimates of functioning and well-being during the first year of recovery from stroke
verfasst von: Patrick J. Doyle
Malcolm R. McNeil
James E. Bost
Katherine B. Ross
Julie L. Wambaugh
William D. Hula
Joseph M. Mikolic
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2007
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9247-8

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Study design

Results

Conclusions

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2007

Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups

Loneliness and health-related quality of life for the empty nest elderly in the rural area of a mountainous county in China

Controlling for occasion-specific effects when assessing the test–retest reliability of self-report health questionnaires

The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries

Feasibility, validity and reliability of the Welsh version of the EQ-5D health status questionnaire

Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQOL-54 in Serbian multiple sclerosis patients sample