Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS)

  • Naoichi Chino
  • Shigeru Sonoda
  • Kazuhisa Domen
  • Eiichi Saitoh
  • Akio Kimura


A new method for the evaluation of stroke patients, designated the Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS), is presented. The SIAS primarily employs singletask assessment of various functions and rates performance on scales of 0 to 5 or 0 to 3. The items evaluated include motor function, muscle tone, sensation, range of motion, pain, trunk control, visuospatial perception, aphasia, and function on the unaffected side. Scores for each item are plotted on a radar chart so that deficits can be identified at a glance. The interobserver variation in SIAS scores is acceptable, and assessment can be performed as part of a routine clinical examination.


Stroke Patient Grip Strength Muscle Tone Functional Grade Ankle Dorsiflexion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Patient Survey 1987 (1989) 1:p41 statistics and Information Department, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Japan (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R, Wood VA, Skilbeck CE, Ismail HM (1983) The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 46:521–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collin C, Wade D (1990) Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 53:576–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, et al (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gresham GE (ed) (1990) Methodologie issues in stroke outcome research. Stroke 21(9)(suppl II)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daniels L, Williams M, et al (1956) Muscle testing. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lyden PD, Lau GT (1991) A critical appraisal of stroke evaluation and rating scales. Stroke 22:1345–1352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spitznagel EL, Heizer JE (1985) A proposed solution to the base rate problem in the kappa statistic. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42:725–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gresham GE, Labi MLC (1984) Functional assessment instruments currently available for documenting outcomes in rehabilitation medicine. In: Granger CV, Gresham GE (eds) Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine. William and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 65–85Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brunnstrom S (1970) Movement therapy in hemiplegia. Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demeurisse G, Demol O, et al (1980) Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia. Eur Neurol 19:382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cote R, Battista RN, et al (1989) The Canadian neurological scale. Neurology 39:638–643PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoichi Chino
  • Shigeru Sonoda
  • Kazuhisa Domen
  • Eiichi Saitoh
  • Akio Kimura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineKeio University School of MedicineShinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160Japan

Personalised recommendations