Literature DB >> 16547774

Measuring stroke impact with SIS: construct validity of SIS telephone administration.

Sooyeon Kwon1, Pamela Duncan, Stephanie Studenski, Subashan Perera, Sue Min Lai, Dean Reker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) using telephone mode of administration.
METHODS: Stroke patients were identified using national VA administrative data and ICD-9 codes in 13 participating VA hospitals. Stroke was confirmed by reviewing electronic medical records. Patients were administered SIS by telephone at 12-weeks post-stroke, and administered the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and SF-36V at 16 weeks post-stroke. The instrument's convergent validity and its ability to differentiate between groups of stroke patients with different disability levels were examined using Pearson's correlations and Kruskal-Wallis one way ANOVA tests.
RESULTS: All the relevant relationships yielded high correlation coefficients with statistical significance: 0.86 for FIM-motor vs. SIS-ADL, and 0.77 for PF in SF-36V vs. SIS-PHYSICAL. The SIS presented better score discrimination and distribution for different severity of stroke than FIM and SF-36V without severe ceiling and floor effects. Kruskal-Wallis tests showed the Physical Component Score of SF-36V did not discriminate any disability levels. Physical functioning (PF) in SF-36V, FIM-motor, SIS-PHYSICAL, SIS-16, and SIS-ADL showed better discrimination in person's functioning. The pairwise comparisons showed that SIS-PHYSICAL, SIS-16, and SIS-ADL discriminated more Rankin levels than FIM-motor and PF in SF-36V.
CONCLUSIONS: SIS telephone survey had superior convergent validity and was better at differentiating between groups of stroke patients with different disability levels than the FIM and SF-36V with no evidence of ceiling and floor effects. Telephone administration of SIS would be a useful and cost-effective method to follow-up community dwelling veterans with stroke.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16547774     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-2292-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  16 in total

Review 1.  Rehabilitation after stroke.

Authors:  R Langton Hewer
Journal:  Q J Med       Date:  1990-07

2.  Stroke: who's counting what?

Authors:  D M Reker; B B Hamilton; P W Duncan; S C Yeh; A Rosen
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr

3.  The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change.

Authors:  P W Duncan; D Wallace; S M Lai; D Johnson; S Embretson; L J Laster
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 7.914

4.  Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36.

Authors:  Sue-Min Lai; Subashan Perera; Pamela W Duncan; Rita Bode
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample.

Authors:  Ben Edwards; Bev O'Connell
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale.

Authors:  Sue-Min Lai; Stephanie Studenski; Pamela W Duncan; Subashan Perera
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study.

Authors:  H S Jørgensen; H Nakayama; H O Raaschou; T S Olsen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.966

8.  Walking after stroke. Measurement and recovery over the first 3 months.

Authors:  D T Wade; V A Wood; A Heller; J Maggs; R Langton Hewer
Journal:  Scand J Rehabil Med       Date:  1987

9.  Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale.

Authors:  Pamela W Duncan; Dean M Reker; Ronnie D Horner; Gregory P Samsa; Helen Hoenig; Barbara J LaClair; Tara K Dudley
Journal:  Clin Rehabil       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.477

10.  Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study.

Authors:  H S Jørgensen; H Nakayama; H O Raaschou; J Vive-Larsen; M Støier; T S Olsen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  7 in total

1.  Psychometric properties of measures of upper limb activity performance in adults with and without spasticity undergoing neurorehabilitation-A systematic review.

Authors:  Shannon Pike; Anne Cusick; Kylie Wales; Lisa Cameron; Lynne Turner-Stokes; Stephen Ashford; Natasha A Lannin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Methodological issues in monitoring health services and outcomes for stroke survivors: a case study.

Authors:  Mary Stuart; Donato Papini; Francesco Benvenuti; Marco Nerattini; Enrico Roccato; Velio Macellari; Steven Stanhope; Richard Macko; Michael Weinrich
Journal:  Disabil Health J       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.554

3.  Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke: the FOCUS RCT.

Authors:  Martin Dennis; John Forbes; Catriona Graham; Maree Hackett; Graeme J Hankey; Allan House; Stephanie Lewis; Erik Lundström; Peter Sandercock; Gillian Mead
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale.

Authors:  Keh-Chung Lin; Tiffany Fu; Ching-Yi Wu; Yu-Wei Hsieh; Chia-Ling Chen; Pei-Chin Lee
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Implementation of a billable transitional care model for stroke patients: the COMPASS study.

Authors:  Sabina B Gesell; Cheryl D Bushnell; Sara B Jones; Sylvia W Coleman; Samantha M Levy; James G Xenakis; Barbara J Lutz; Janet Prvu Bettger; Janet Freburger; Jacqueline R Halladay; Anna M Johnson; Anna M Kucharska-Newton; Laurie H Mettam; Amy M Pastva; Matthew A Psioda; Meghan D Radman; Wayne D Rosamond; Mysha E Sissine; Joanne Halls; Pamela W Duncan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  The FOCUS, AFFINITY and EFFECTS trials studying the effect(s) of fluoxetine in patients with a recent stroke: a study protocol for three multicentre randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Gillian Mead; Maree L Hackett; Erik Lundström; Veronica Murray; Graeme J Hankey; Martin Dennis
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 2.279

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.