Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2012 | Brief Communication

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

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

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2012

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.

vorige artikel The reliability and validity of Turkish version of Childhood Asthma Control Test

volgende artikel PROMIS Pediatric Anger Scale: an item response theory analysis

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)
Auteurs: Rui Soles Gonçalves
João Neves Gil
Luís Manuel Cavalheiro
Rui Dias Costa
Pedro Lopes Ferreira
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9977-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2012

The psychosocial correlates of quality of life in the dialysis population: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population

Assessment of the psychological burden associated with pruritus in hemodialysis patients using the kidney disease quality of life short form

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

Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

Why perform a quality or quality-of-life assessment?