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.
References
Melo, T. P., & Ferro, J. M. (2003). Stroke units and stroke services in Portugal. Cerebrovascular Disease, 15(Suppl 1), 21–22.
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.
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.
Wolfe, C. D. (2000). The impact of stroke. British Medical Bulletin, 56, 275–286.
Beaton, D. E., & Schemitsch, E. (2003). Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clinics Orthopedic, 413, 90–105.
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.
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.
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.
Fermanian, J. (1984). Measuring agreement between 2 observers: A quantitative case. Revue d’épidémiologie et de santé publique, 32, 408–413.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the physical therapy staff from the health care institutions. In addition, the patients who participated in this study also deserve our deep gratitude.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gonçalves, R.S., Gil, J.N., Cavalheiro, L.M. et al. Reliability and validity of the Portuguese version of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0). Qual Life Res 21, 691–696 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9977-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9977-5