Self-and proxy-report agreement on the stroke impact scale

Stroke

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 3308-3314

  Carod Artal, Francisco Javier ^a   Coral, Luciane Ferreira ^a   Trizotto, Daniele Stieven ^a   Moreira, Clarissa Menezes ^a  

^a Sarah Hospital   (Spain)

Author keywords

Disability; Health related quality of life; Interrater agreement; Proxy; Stroke Impact Scale; Stroke outcome; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CUSTODY; EMOTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEMORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STRENGTH; STROKE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AFFECT; ANXIETY DISORDERS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CAREGIVERS; COMMUNICATION; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROXY; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF ASSESSMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STROKE;

EID: 70349666983     PISSN: 00392499     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.558031     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. The WHOQOL Group: Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28: 551-559.
2. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection Americans Investigators: Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950-963.
3. Pickard AS, Knight SJ. Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: A conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Med Care. 2005;43:493-499.
4. Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing the quality of life after stroke: The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke. 1997;28:1541-1549.
5. Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke. 1997;28:1883-1887.
6. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, Shuaib A, Carriere KC, Nasser AM. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke. 2004;35:607-612.
7. Hung SY, Pickard AS, Witt WP, Lambert BL. Pain and depression in caregivers affected their perception of pain in stroke patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:963-970.
8. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002; 33:2593-2599.
9. Williams LS, Bakas T, Brizendine E, Plue L, Tu W, Hendrie H, Kroenke K. How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients' healthrelated quality of life? Stroke. 2006;37:2081-2085.
10. Hilari K, Owen S, Farrelly SJ. Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:1072-1075.
11. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131-2140.
12. Foulkes MA, Wolf PA, Price TR, Mohr JP, Hier DB. The Stroke Data Bank: Design, methods, and baseline characteristics. Stroke. 1988;19:547-554.
13. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, Spilker J, Holleran J, Eberle R, Hertzberg V. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: A clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20: 864-870.
14. Bonita R, Beaglehole R. Modification of Rankin scale: Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke. 1988;19:1497-1500.
15. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60, II: Prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957;2:200-215.
16. Mahoney PL, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61-65.
17. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiat Res. 1975;12:189-198.
18. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361-370.
19. Lai S, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:1840-1844.
20. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Bode RK, Perera S, DeRosa J. Stroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function. Neurology. 2003;60: 291-296.
21. Carod-Artal FJ, Ferreira Coral L, Stieven Trizotto D, Menezes Moreira C. The Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: Evaluation of acceptability, reliability and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke. 2008;39:2477-2484.
22. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56: 395-407.
23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
24. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc, 1994.
25. Segal ME, Guillard M, Schall RR. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the Functional Independence Measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;75:208-212.
26. Tooth LR, McKenna KT, Smith M. Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index. Clin Rehab. 2003;17:656-665.
27. Chen MH, Hsieh CL, Mao HF, Huang SL. Differences between patient and proxy reports in the assessment of disability after stroke. Clin Rehab. 2007;21:351-356.
28. Poulin V, Desrosiers J. Participation after stroke: Comparing proxies' and patients' perceptions. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:28-35.
29. Sneeuw KC, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:1130-1143.
30. Horowitz A, Goodman CR, Reinhardt JP. Congruence between disabled elders and their primary caregivers. Gerontologist. 2004;44: 532-542.