Validation of questionnaire for evaluation of ischemic stroke sequels – the Czech version of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0

Česká verzia

Authors: E. Gurková ¹; D. Šaňák ²; L. Šáteková ¹; Š. Šaňáková ¹; J. Zapletalová ³
Authors place of work: Ústav ošetřovatelství, Fakulta zdravotnických věd, UP Olomouc ¹; Komplexní Cerebrovaskulární centrum, Neurologická klinika, LF UP a FN Olomouc ²; Ústav lékařské biofyziky a statistiky, LF UP Olomouc ³
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2022; 85(4): 287-295
Category: Original Paper
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccsnn2022287

Summary

Introduction: Assessment of the quality of life in patients after ischemic stroke (IS) is essential to objectively assess the consequences in everyday life and to better identify all aspects of disability and limitations. However, there is no validated specific tool for quality-of-life assessment in patients after IS in the Czech Republic. Aim: To validate the Czech version of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) 3.0 – the most used tool worldwide in stroke survivors, which will allow its standardized use in the Czech population. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients with IS without cognitive deficit aged 18–80 years were included in the validation study. Internal consistency was examined using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The following scales were used to determine the construct and criterion validity of the Czech version of SIS 3.0: WHOQOL-BREF, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and Hospital Anxiety and Beck Depression Inventory. Results: A total of 150 patients (58.4% men, mean age 57.6 ± 13.7 years) were enrolled in the study at a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 0.4 months after the onset of stroke, with 96.7% achieving good functional independence (mRS 0–2). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of particular domains ranged from 0.750 to 0.934. Significant correlations were found between SIS 3.0 domains, WHOQOL-BREF and other used tools of the neuropsychological battery. Conclusion: In the presented study, the psychometric properties were verified and adequate criteria and construct validity of the Czech version of SIS 3.0 were confirmed.

Keywords:

ischemic stroke – Reliability – health related quality of life – Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 – validity

Zdroje

1. van Mierlo ML, Schröder C, van Heugten CM et al. The influence of psychological factors on health-related quality of life after stroke: a systematic review. Int J Stroke 2014; 9 (3): 341–348. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12149.

2. Carod-Artal FJ, Coral LF, Trizotto DS et al. The stroke impact scale 3.0: evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke 2008; 39 (9): 2477–2484. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.513671.

3. Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res 2012; 21 (7): 1205–1216. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-00 24-3.

4. MacIsaac R, Ali M, Peters M et al. Derivation and validation of a modified short form of the stroke impact scale. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5 (5): e003108. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003108.

5. Vellone E, Savini S, Fida R et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2015; 30 (3): 229–241. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000 145.

6. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY et al. Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Qual Life Res 2010; 19 (3): 435–443. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9597-5.

7. Sullivan JE. Measurement characteristics and clinical utility of the stroke impact scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95 (9): 1799–1800. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.02. 011.

8. Caël S, Decavel P, Binquet C et al. Stroke impact scale version 2: validation of the French version. Phys Ther 2015; 95 (5): 778–790. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130012.

9. Ochi M, Ohashi H, Hachisuka K et al. The reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Stroke Impact Scale Version 3.0. J UOEH 2017; 39 (3): 215–221. doi: 10.7888/juoeh.39.215.

10. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Crocker H et al. The Stroke Impact Scale: validation in a UK setting and development of a SIS short form and SIS index. Stroke 2013; 44 (9): 2532–2535. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001 847.

11. Choi SU, Lee HS, Shin JH et al. Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: reliability and validity evaluation of the Korean version. Ann Rehabil Med 2017; 41 (3): 387–393. doi: 10.5535/arm.2017.41.3.387.

12. Coppers A, Möller JC, Marks D. Psychometric proper- ties of the short form of the Stroke Impact Scale in German-speaking stroke survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2021; 19 (1): 190. doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01 826-5.

13. Mohammad AH, Al-Sadat N, Siew Yim L et al. Reliability and validity of the Nigerian (Hausa) version of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) 3.0 index. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 302097. doi: 10.1155/2014/302097.

14. Gonçalves RS, Gil JN, Cavalheiro LM et al. Reliability and validity of the Portuguese version of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0). Qual Life Res 2012; 21 (4): 691–696. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9977-5.

15. Hantal AO, Dogu B, Buyukavci R et al. Stroke impact scale version 3.0: study of reliability and validity in stroke patients in the Turkish population. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 60 (2): 106–116. doi: 10.5152/tftrd.2014.70 487.

16. Kamwesiga JT, von Koch L, Kottorp A et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 version in Uganda: a small-scale study. SAGE Open Med 2016; 4: 2050312116671859. doi: 10.1177/2050312116671 859.

17. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Bode RK et al. Stroke Impact Scale-16: a brief assessment of physical function. Neurology 2003; 60 (2): 291–296. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000041493.656 65.d6.

18. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Lai SM et al. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84 (7): 950–963. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993 (03) 00035-2.

19. Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Phys Ther 2013; 93 (10): 1383–1396. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120492.

20. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Studenski S et al. Conceptualization of a new stroke-specific outcome measure: the stroke impact scale. Top Stroke Rehabil 2001; 8 (2): 19–33. doi: 10.1310/BRHX-PKTA-0TUJ-UYWT.

21. Lai SM, Perera S, Duncan PW et al. Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of the stroke impact scale and short form-36. Stroke 2003; 34 (2): 488–493. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000054162.94998.C0.

22. Richardson M, Campbell N, Allen L et al. The stroke impact scale: performance as a quality of life measure in a community-based stroke rehabilitation setting. Disabil Rehabil 2016; 38 (14): 1425–1430. doi: 10.310/09638288.2015.1102337.

23. Guidetti S, Ytterberg C, Ekstam L et al. Changes in the impact of stroke between 3 and 12 months post-stroke, assessed with the Stroke Impact Scale. J Rehabil Med 2014; 46 (10): 963–968. doi: 10.2340/16501977- 1865.

24. Bednařík J, Tomek A, Bar M et al. Ischemická cévní mozková příhoda nebo tranzitorní ischemická ataka nekardioembolické etiologie a jejich sekundární prevence. Adaptovaný klinický doporučený postup. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //kdp.uzis.cz/res/guideline/11-aterotromboticka-ischemicka-cmp-nebo-tia-jejich-sekundarni-prevence-final.pdf.

25. Bryndziár T, Šedová P, Mikulík R. Incidence cévní mozkové příhody v Evropě – systematická review. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80/113 (2): 180–189.

26. Sedova P, Brown RD, Zvolsky M et al. Validation of stroke diagnosis in the National Registry of Hospitalized Patients in the Czech Republic. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2015; 24 (9): 2032–2038. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.04.019.

27. Acquadro C, Conway K, Giroudet C et al. Linguistic validation manual for health outcomes assessments. Lyon, France: MAPI Institute 2012.

28. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8 (2): 94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.

29. Brott T, Adams HP, Olinger CP et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989; 20 (7): 864–870. doi: 10.1161/01.str.20.7.864.

30. Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Diringer MN. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: a comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. J Rehabil Res Dev 2003; 40 (1): 1–8. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2003.01.0001.

31. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J J 1965; 14: 61–65.

32. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med 1998; 28 (3): 551–558. doi: 10.1017/ s0033291798006667.

33. Dragomirecká E, Bartoňová J. Dotazník kvality života Světové zdravotnické organizace WHOQOL-BREF. Psychometrické vlastnosti a první zkušenosti s českou verzí. Psychiatrie 2006; 10 (3): 144–149.

34. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67 (6): 361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.

35. Beck AT, Ward C, Mendelson M et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961; 4 (6): 561–571. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031 004.

36. Dimunová L, Sováriová Soósová M, Kardosová K et al. Quality of life in post-stroke patients. Kontakt 2021; 23 (3): 157–161. doi: 10.32725/kont.2020.036.

37. Hendl J. Přehled statistických metod zpracování dat. Analýza a metaanalýza dat. Praha: Portál 2004.

38. Fadrná T, Školoudík D. Quality of life in self-sufficient patients after stroke. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80/113 (3): 323–327. doi: 10.14735/amcsnn2017csnn. eu1.

39. Fadrná T, Mikšová Z, Herzig R et al. Factors influencing quality of life in patients followed in the neurosonology laboratory for carotid stenosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2018; 16 (79): 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-09 02-2.