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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
DM Reker BB Hamilton PW Duncan SC Yeh A Rosen (2001) ArticleTitleStroke: Who’s counting what? J Rehabil Res Dev 38 IssueID2 281–289 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzhvVGntg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11392661
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation, Clinical Guideline Number 16. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1995
R Langton Hewer (1990) ArticleTitleRehabilitation after stroke Q J Med 76 IssueID279 659–674 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6D3MfhvFU%3D Occurrence Handle2217671
DT Wade VA Wood A Heller J Maggs R Langton Hewer (1987) ArticleTitleWalking after stroke. Measurement and recovery over the first 3 months Scand J Rehabil Med 19 IssueID1 25–30 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiiB3cngslA%3D Occurrence Handle3576138
HS Jorgensen H Nakayama HO Raaschou TS Olsen (1995) ArticleTitleRecovery of walking function in stroke patients: The Copenhagen Stroke Study Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76 IssueID1 27–32 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80038-7 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqC3M%2Fit1A%3D Occurrence Handle7811170
Offic of Quality & Performance, Department of Veterans Affairs. http://vaww.oqp.med.va.gov/default.htm, accessed April 7, 2005
PW Duncan SM Lai J Keighley (2000) ArticleTitleDefining post-stroke recovery: Implications for design and interpretation of drug trials Neuropharmacology 39 IssueID5 835–841 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0028-3908(00)00003-4 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXhsVWkt7w%3D Occurrence Handle10699448
D Wallace PW Duncan S Lai (2000) ArticleTitleThe Stroke Impact Scale: A sensitive and consistent measure of stroke recovery Stroke 301 IssueID1 302
PW Duncan DM Reker S Kwon et al. (2005) ArticleTitleMeasuring stroke impact with SIS: Telephone vs. mail administration in veterans with stroke Med Care 43 507–515 Occurrence Handle10.1097/01.mlr.0000160421.42858.de Occurrence Handle15838417
PW Duncan D Wallace SM Lai D Johnson S Embretson LJ Laster (1999) ArticleTitleThe stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change Stroke 30 IssueID10 2131–2140 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvksVSisA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10512918
PW Duncan D Wallace S Studenski SM Lai D Johnson (2001) ArticleTitleConceptualization of a new stroke-specific outcome measure: The Stroke Impact Scale Topics Stroke Rehabil 8 IssueID2 19–33 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3svmtFOrtA%3D%3D
PW Duncan SM Lai D Tyler S Perera DM Reker S Studenski (2002) ArticleTitleEvaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale Stroke 33 IssueID11 2593–2599 Occurrence Handle10.1161/01.STR.0000034395.06874.3E Occurrence Handle12411648
PW Duncan DM Reker RD Horner et al. (2002) ArticleTitlePerformance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale Clin Rehabil 16 IssueID5 493–505 Occurrence Handle10.1191/0269215502cr510oa Occurrence Handle12194620
PW Duncan RK Bode S Min Lai S Perera (2003) ArticleTitleRasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84 IssueID7 950–963 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2 Occurrence Handle12881816
PW Duncan SM Lai RK Bode S Perera J DeRosa (2003) ArticleTitleStroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function Neurology 60 IssueID2 291–296 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s%2FktlWgtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12552047
B Edwards B O’Connell (2003) ArticleTitleInternal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 20) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample Qual Life Res 12 IssueID8 1127–1135 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1026109920478 Occurrence Handle14651430
SM Lai S Studenski PW Duncan S Perera (2002) ArticleTitlePersisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale Stroke 33 IssueID7 1840–1844 Occurrence Handle10.1161/01.STR.0000019289.15440.F2 Occurrence Handle12105363
SM Lai S Perera PW Duncan R Bode (2003) ArticleTitlePhysical and social functioning after stroke: Comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36 Stroke 34 IssueID2 488–493 Occurrence Handle10.1161/01.STR.0000054162.94998.C0 Occurrence Handle12574565
HS Jorgensen H Nakayama HO Raaschou J Vive-Larsen M Stoier TS Olsen (1995) ArticleTitleOutcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76 IssueID5 406–412 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqB28%2FhvFU%3D Occurrence Handle7741609
VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Stroke Rehabilitation. Veterans Health Administration, 2003
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwon, S., Duncan, P., Studenski, S. et al. Measuring Stroke Impact with SIS: Construct Validity of SIS Telephone Administration. Qual Life Res 15, 367–376 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-2292-2
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-2292-2