How much change in the stroke impact scale-16 is important to people who have experienced a stroke?

Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 477-483

  Fulk, George ^a   Ludwig, Miriam ^b   Dunning, Kari ^c,d   Golden, Sue ^b   Boyne, Pierce ^d   West, Trent ^c  

^a CLARKSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network   (United States)

^c Drake Center   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

outcome measures; quality of life; rehabilitation; stroke; Stroke Impact Scale

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONVALESCENCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PHYSIOTHERAPY; SCORING SYSTEM; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AREA UNDER CURVE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; ROC CURVE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STROKE; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78751469136     PISSN: 10749357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1310/tsr1706-477     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Gray LJ, Sprigg N, Bath PM, et al. Sex differences in quality of life in stroke survivors: data from the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TAIST). Stroke. 2007;38:2960-2964.
2. Hartman-Maeir A, Soroker N, Ring H, Avni N, Katz N. Activities, participation and satisfaction one-year post stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29: 559-566.
3. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1035-1042.
4. Edwards DF, Hahn M, Baum C, Dromerick AW. The impact of mild stroke on meaningful activity and life satisfaction. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2006;15:151-157.
5. Ones K, Yilmaz E, Cetinkaya B, Caglar N. Quality of life for patients poststroke and the factors affecting it. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;14:261-266.
6. Hilari K, Byng S. Health-related quality of life in people with severe aphasia. Int J Lang Comm Dis. 2009;44:193-205.
7. Aprile I, Piazzini DB, Bertolini C, et al. Predictive variables on disability and quality of life in stroke outpatients undergoing rehabilitation. Neurol Sci. 2006;27:40-46.
8. Patel MD, Tilling K, Lawrence E, Rudd AG, Wolfe CDA, McKevitt C. Relationships between longterm stroke disability, handicap and health-related quality of life. Age Ageing. 2006;35:273-279.
9. Owolabi MO. What are the consistent predictors of generic and specifi c post-stroke health-related quality of life? Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;29:105-110.
10. Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998;29: 986-991.
11. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke. 2000;31:1429-1438.
12. Kwon S, Duncan P, Studenski S, Perera S, Lai SM, Reker D. Measuring stroke impact with SIS: construct validity of SIS telephone administration. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:367-376.
13. Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the Stroke Impact Scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005;43:507-515.
14. Duncan PW, Reker DM, Horner RD, et al. Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specifi c outcome measure, the StrokeImpact Scale. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:493-505.
15. Lai SM, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:1840-1844.
16. Lai SM, Perera S, Duncan PW, Bode R. Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of theStroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke. 2003;34:488-493.
17. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specifi c outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950-963.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical signifi cance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371-383.
21. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415.
22. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109-114.
23. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research: how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419-423.
24. Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86:735-743.
25. Fulk GD, Echternach JL. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of gait speed in individuals undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2008;32:8-13.
26. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1693-1700.
27. Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, et al. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the fi rst 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Phys Ther. 2010;90:196-208.
28. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired: reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64:35-40.
29. Engelhart C, Eisenstein N, Johnson V, et al. Factor structure of the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Exam (Cognistat) in healthy, and psychiatrically and neurologically impaired, elderly adults. Clin Neuropsychol. 1999;13:109-111.
30. Edwards B, O'Connell B. Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1127-1135.
31. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specifi c functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2006;31:598-602.
32. Portney LGW, M.P. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
33. Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, Stark PC, Black-Schaffer RM, Stein J. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:32-39.
34. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modifi ed Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776-788.
35. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27-30.
36. Dalton GW, Keating JL. Number needed to treat: a statistic relevant for physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1214-1219.
37. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, et al. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:486-492.
38. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1197-1207