Stroke Impact Scale-16 - A brief assessment of physical function

被引:231
作者
Duncan, PW
Lai, SM
Bode, RK
Perera, S
DeRosa, J
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Hlth Sci Ctr, Coll Hlt Profess, Brooks Canc Rehabil Studies, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
[2] N Florida S Georgia Dept Vet Affairs, Rehabil Outcomes Res Ctr, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] Univ Kansas, Med Ctr, Dept Prevent Med, Kansas City, KS 66103 USA
[4] Univ Kansas, Med Ctr, Ctr Aging, Kansas City, KS 66103 USA
[5] Rehabil Inst Chicago, Rehabil Serv Evaluat Unit, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[6] Northwestern Univ, Sch Med, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[7] Columbia Univ, New York Presbyterian Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, New York, NY USA
关键词
D O I
10.1212/01.WNL.0000041493.65665.D6
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: To 1) develop a short instrument (Stroke Impact Scale-16 [SIS-16]) to assess physical function in patients with stroke at approximately 1 to 3 months poststroke using items from the composite physical domain of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) version 3.0, and 2) compare the SIS-16 and a commonly used disability measure, the Barthel Index (BI), in terms of their ability to discriminate disability. Methods: A total of 621 subjects enrolled in the GAIN Americas randomized stroke trial were included in this study. Rasch analysis, which models the probability of a subject's response to an item using both subject ability and item difficulty, was used to construct the SIS-16, describe its properties, and compare its ordering and range of item difficulties to those of the BI. Box plots and analysis of variance were used to examine differences in BI and SIS-16 scores across modified Rankin categories. Results: The study sample had an average age of 68 +/- 12.4 years and 56% were men. Stroke diagnoses were classified as minor in 91 patients (NIH Stroke Scale score [NIHSS] 0 to 5), moderate in 304 (NIHSS 6 to 13), and major in 226 (NIHSS ! 14). Twelve of the original 28 items in the SIS version 3.0 composite physical domain were eliminated to produce the SIS-16, with a minimal loss of reliability. As compared to the BI, the SIS-16 contains more difficult items that can differentiate patients with less severe limitations, and therefore has less pronounced ceiling effects. SIS-16 scores were significantly different across Rankin levels 0 to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, whereas BI was significantly different only across Rankin levels 0 to 2, 3, 4, and 5. Conclusion: Compared to the BI, the SIS-16 is an excellent collection of items suitable for assessing a wide range of physical function limitations of patients with stroke at 1 to 3 months poststroke. Because of a less pronounced ceiling effect, the SIS-16 can differentiate lower levels of disability as compared to the BI.
引用
收藏
页码:291 / 296
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Validation of the short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients [J].
Anderson, C ;
Laubscher, S ;
Burns, R .
STROKE, 1996, 27 (10) :1812-1816
[2]   Depression and other determinants of values placed on current health state by stroke patients Evidence from the VA Acute Stroke (VASt) study [J].
Bosworth, HB ;
Horner, RD ;
Edwards, LJ ;
Matchar, DB .
STROKE, 2000, 31 (11) :2603-2609
[3]   MEASUREMENTS OF ACUTE CEREBRAL INFARCTION - A CLINICAL EXAMINATION SCALE [J].
BROTT, T ;
ADAMS, HP ;
OLINGER, CP ;
MARLER, JR ;
BARSAN, WG ;
BILLER, J ;
SPILKER, J ;
HOLLERAN, R ;
EBERLE, R ;
HERTZBERG, V ;
RORICK, M ;
MOOMAW, CJ ;
WALKER, M .
STROKE, 1989, 20 (07) :864-870
[4]   Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke [J].
Buck, D ;
Jacoby, A ;
Massey, A ;
Ford, G .
STROKE, 2000, 31 (08) :2004-2010
[5]   Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke [J].
Dorman, P ;
Slattery, J ;
Farrell, B ;
Dennis, M ;
Sandercock, P .
STROKE, 1998, 29 (01) :63-68
[6]   Health status of individuals with mild stroke [J].
Duncan, PW ;
Samsa, GP ;
Weinberger, M ;
Goldstein, LB ;
Bonito, A ;
Witter, DM ;
Enarson, C ;
Matchar, D .
STROKE, 1997, 28 (04) :740-745
[7]   Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale [J].
Duncan, PW ;
Lai, SM ;
Tyler, D ;
Perera, S ;
Reker, DM ;
Studenski, S .
STROKE, 2002, 33 (11) :2593-2599
[8]   The stroke impact scale version 2.0 - Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change [J].
Duncan, PW ;
Wallace, D ;
Lai, SM ;
Johnson, D ;
Embretson, S ;
Laster, LJ .
STROKE, 1999, 30 (10) :2131-2140
[9]  
DUNCAN PW, 2001, IN PRESS ARCH PHYS M
[10]  
MAHONEY F I, 1965, Md State Med J, V14, P61