Stroke Impact Scale

Last Updated

July 01, 2019

Expertise, Instruction and Mentorship

Center for Smart Use of Technologies to Assess Real World Outcomes (C-STAR)

Learn more

Upcoming Stroke Course

May 9–10
Live and Online

Offered by Academy, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

Purpose

The Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) is a self-report questionnaire that evaluates disability and health-related quality of life after stroke (Mudler & Nijland, 2016).

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym SIS

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Cognition
Communication
Depression
Functional Mobility
Gait
General Health
Life Participation
Quality of Life
Social Relationships
Social Support
Upper Extremity Function

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Cost Description

Free to non-profit users via link above.
Contact information and permission to use:
MAPI Research Trust, Lyon, France:
Email: PROinformation@mapi-trust.org
Internet: www.mapi-trust.org
Scale: http://www.mapi-trust.org/services/questionnairelicensing/catalog-questionnaires/298-sis

Diagnosis/Conditions

Stroke Recovery

Stroke

SIS is a 59-item measure.
8 domains assessed:
1) Strength (4 items)
2) Hand function (5 items)
3) ADL/IADL (10 items)
4) Mobility (9 items)
5) Communication (7 items)
6) Emotion (9 items)
7) Memory and thinking (7 items)
8) Participation/Role function (8 items)
Each item is rated in a 5-point Likert scale in terms of the difficulty the patient has experienced in completing each item.
Summative scores are generated for each domain, scores range from 0-100.
An extra question on stroke recovery asks that the client rate on a scale from 0-100 how much the client feels that he/she has recovered from his/her stroke.
Formula for scoring domains:
Transformed Scale = [(Actual raw score - lowest possible raw score) / Possible raw score] * 100 (free scoring software available)
3 items change polarity in the "emotion" domain: 3f, 3h, and 3i; when manually scoring items must be reverse-scored.
A proxy version is available if patients are unable to answer (Duncan et al., 2002).
SIS is designed for repeated administration to track changes over time (refer to manual).
SIS can be used in both in clinical and research applications (Refer to manual).
Factor analysis of the SIS 2.0 revealed that the 4 domains (strength, hand function, mobility, and ADL/IADL) could be summed together to create a physical dimension score (the SIS-16).
The SIS-16 consists of 16 items capturing daily activities.
For each item, the individual is asked to rate the level of difficulty of the item in the past 2 weeks using the following scale:
1 = could not do it at all
2 = very difficult
3 = somewhat difficult
4 = a little difficult
5 = not difficult at all

Number of Items

Score sheet
Computer scoring requires Microsoft Access
find it free at the instruments website

15-20 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jason Raad, MS and Jennifer Moore, PT, DHS, NCS and the Rehabilitation Measures Team;

Updated by Jane Sullivan, PT, DHS and the Stroke EDGE taskforce of the Neurology Section of the APTA;

Updated by Jill Smiley, MPH and the Rehabilitation Measures Team in June 2013.

Updated by Bridget Hahn, OTD, OTR/L, Kimberly Porsivigan, OTS, Evangelia Tzakis, OTS, and Katherine Williams, OTS of the Rush University Occupational Therapy Department in July of 2019.

Body Part

Upper Extremity
Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
Cognition
Emotion
General Health
Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

Abbreviations:
HR	Highly Recommend
R	Recommend
*LS / UR*	Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group / Unable to Recommend
NR	Not Recommended

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post)

(Vestibular < 6 weeks post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

StrokEDGE

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

StrokEDGE

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

	Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)	Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)	Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)	Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)
StrokEDGE	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not reported

Common Data Elements

Classification and Disease	Date Retrieved
Supplemental: Stroke Exploratory: Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)	4/17/2019

Considerations

The respondent must be able to follow a 3-step command
The author recommends that patients score at least 16 on the Mini-Mental Exam
The SIS can be mail administered, completed by proxy, completed by proxy by mailed administration, or be administered by telephone
Proxies (if used) are more likely to rate a patient as impaired (Duncan et al, 2002)
The SIS should be used with caution in individuals with mild impairment as the items in the communication, memory, and emotion domains are considered easy and only capture liitation in most impaired individuals
Would be appropriate in these settings provided the client has spent time living in the community since stroke diagnosis as many items relate to living at home
Alternately, the tool could be used and a percentage score calculated omitting "home-based" items

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Stroke:

(Lin et al, 2010; n = 74; mean age = 54.1 (11.4); mean time post-stroke = 17.5 (17.7) months, Chronic Stroke)

Strength = 8.7
ADL/IADL = 6.3
Mobility = 5.5
Hand function = 9.4

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Stroke:

Minimal Detectable Change (Lin et al, 2010, Chronic Stroke)

Strength = 24.0
ADL/IADL = 17.3
Mobility = 15.1
Hand function = 25.9

Chronic Stroke: (Guidetti et al., 2014)

Time post injury: between 3 and 12 months
Age years; mean (SD)/median (range): 70 (14)/72 (24–93)
The minimal detectable change in difference score for Strength, ADL/IADL, Mobility, and Hand function was 24.0, 17.3, 15.1 and 25.9

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Stroke:

Clinically Important Differences (Lin et al, 2010, Chronic Stroke)

Strength = 9.2
ADL/IADL = 5.9
Mobility = 4.5
Hand function = 17.8

Chronic Stroke: (Guidetti et al., 2014)

Time post injury: between 3 and 12 months
Age years; mean (SD)/median (range): 70 (14)/72 (24–93)
Change in difference scores for a clinically important difference (CID) for Strength, ADL/IADL, Mobility, Hand function. was 9.2, 5.9, 4.5 and 17.8.

Normative Data

Stroke:

(Duncan et al, 2002; n = 287; mean age = 72.6 (10.0) years; < 28 days post-stroke; SIS Version 3.0, Acute Stroke)

SIS Domain	Mean (SD)
Strength	61.9 (22.0)
Memory	77.8 (19.1)
Emotion	74.3 (18.1)
Communication	81.0 (19.1)
ADL/IADL	66.5 (23.2)
Mobility	60.2 (23.1)
Hand function	55.9 (34.5)
Social participation	58.9 (25.7)
SIS-16 physical	67.5 (21.2)

(Huang et al, 2010; n = 58; mean age = 56.42 (11.67) years; 17.85 months post stroke, range 7-88, Chronic Stroke)

SIS Domain	Mean (SD)
Strength	40.73 (20.05)
Memory	81.54 (19.17)
Emotion	59.63 (17.25)
Communication	89.71 (16.87)
ADL/IADL	67.41 (20.10)
Mobility	79.25 (18.08)
Hand function	29.63 (25.39
Social participation	47.92 (25.13)
SIS-16 physical	61.98 (12.27)

Test/Retest Reliability

Stroke:

(Duncan et al, 1999; n = 33 minor severity; n = 58 moderate severity; mean age minor severity = 69.3 (10.1); mean age moderate severity 71.9 (10.1); enrolled < 14 days post-stroke, Acute Stroke)

SIS version 2.0 (current version = 3.0) at 1, 3 and 6 months post-stroke:

Adequate to Excellent test-retest reliability ICC = 0.70 to 0.92 (except for the emotion domain, ICC = 0.57)

(Edwards and O'connell, 2003; n = 74 individuals who suffered from a stroke; mean age = 58.35(14.80) years; mean time since stroke = 56.8 months; Anglo-Saxon Australian sample, Chronic Stroke)

Adequate to Excellent test-retest reliability in all domains except for the emotion domain
Poor test-retest reliability in the emotion domain

General Stroke: (Vellone et al, p. 234, 2015).

Participants had a clinically diagnosed stroke which was confirmed by either tomography or magnetic resonance
Mean (SD) age: 71 (11)
Good test-retest reliability (ICC .79 for global stroke recovery and .98 for cognitive factor).

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Stroke:

(Carod-Artal et al, 2009; n = 180 proxy-stroke patient pairs; mean age = 57.9 (13.5) years; Gender = 100 males and 80 females; mean time since stroke = 20.3 (23.6) months, Chronic Stroke)

Excellent interrater reliability for hand function (ICC = 0.82) and mobility (ICC = 0.80) domains
Adequate interrater reliability for strength (ICC = 0.61), ADL/IADL (ICC = 0.74), and memory and thinking (ICC = 0.43) domains
Poor interrater reliability for communication (ICC = 0.39), emotion (ICC = 0.17), and social participation (ICC = 0.29) domains

Internal Consistency

Stroke:

(Duncan et al, 1999; SIS version 2.0, Acute Stroke)

Excellent: Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.83 to 0.90 across the 8 domains

(Carod-Artal et al, 2009, Chronic Stroke)

Excellent internal consistency for 7 of the domains:
- Strength (ICC = 0.82)
- Hand function (ICC = 0.95)
- Mobility (ICC = 0.94)
- ADL/IADL (ICC = 0.87)
- Memory (ICC = 0.92)
- Communcation (ICC = 0.84)
- Social participation (ICC = 0.85)
Adequate interrater reliability for emotion domain (ICC = 0.49)

Chronic Stroke: (Vellone et al, p. 234, 2015).

Participants had a clinically diagnosed stroke which was confirmed by either tomography or magnetic resonance
Mean (SD) age: 71 (11)
Excellent internal consistency ranging from 0.89 for the Emotional factor to 0.98 for the Physical factor

Subacute Stroke: (Richardson et al., 2016)

Time post stroke: baseline, 6 month and 12 month
Age in years, mean (SD)
- Baseline (n=164): 66.7 (12.8)
- 6 months (n=108): 66.52 (12.9)
- 12 months (n=37): 69.35 (13.6)
Excellent internal consistency at all timepoints (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.81. The composite Physical Functioning score was excellent at all timepoints (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.95)

Acute Stroke:(MacIsaac et al., 2016)

Average age of participant: 68.5 years
Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > .93) within acute and rehabilitation data sets.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Stroke:

(Duncan et al, 2002, Acute Stroke)

Measures Assessed	Patient r	Proxy r
Folstein MMSE and SIS memory	0.42	0.37
Barthel Index and SIS ADL/IADL	0.72*	0.78*
Barthel Index and SIS mobility	0.69	0.7*
Lawton IADL and SIS ADL/IADL	0.77*	0.78*
Motricity and SIS strength	0.67	0.69
*indicates excellent correlation

Predictive Validity (Kwon et al, 2006, Acute Stroke)

Excellent correlation between FIM-motor correlation and SIS-ADL (r = 0.86*)
Excellent correlation between SF-36V (Physical Component) and SIS-PHYSICAL (r = 0.77*)

*SIS at 12 weeks; FIM and SF-36v at 16 weeks

(Duncan et al, 1999; SIS version 2.0, Acute Stroke)

SIS Domain	Comparative Measure	Correlation	Rating
Hand function	FMA-Upper Extremity Motor	r = 0.81	Excellent
Mobility	FIM Motor	r = 0.83	Excellent
	Barthel Index	r = 0.82	Excellent
	Duke Mobility Scale	r = 0.83	Excellent
	SF-36 Physical Functioning	r = 0.84	Excellent
Strength	NIHSS Motor	r = -0.59	Adequate
	FMA Total	r = 0.72	Excellent
ADL/IADL	Barthel Index	r = 0.84	Excellent
	FIM Motor	r = 0.84	Excellent
	Lawton IADL	r = 0.82	Excellent
Memory	MMSE	r = 0.58	Adequate
Communication	FIM Social/Cognition	r = 0.53	Adequate
	NIHSS Language	r = -0.44	Adequate
Emotion	Geriatric Depression Scale	r = -0.77	Excellent
	SF-36 Mental Health	r = 0.74	Excellent
Participation	SF-36 Emotional Role	r = 0.28	Poor
	SF-36 Physical Role	r = 0.45	Adequate
	SF-36 Social Functioning	r = 0.70	Excellent
Physical	Barthel Index	r = 0.76	Excellent
	FIM Motor	r = 0.79	Excellent
	SF-36 Physical Functioning	r = 0.75	Excellent
	Lawton IADL	r = 0.73	Excellent

(Lin, Fu, et al, 2010, Chronic Stroke)

Adequate to Excellent criterion validity for the hand function subscale (rho = 0.51-0.68; p < 0.01)

(Huang et al, 2010; n = 58 patients with chronic stroke who were treated with CIT for 2 hours daily for 3 weeks, Chronic Stroke)

The initial FIM score predicted the overall and ADL/IADL subscale scores

Concurrent Validity

Chronic Stroke: (Vellone et al, p. 234, 2015).

Participants had a clinically diagnosed stroke which was confirmed by either tomography or magnetic resonance
Mean (SD) age: 71 (11)
Excellent correlations between the SIS 3.0 Cognitive factor and the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE) using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r= 0.69)
Excellent correlations between the SIS 3.0 Physical factor and the Barthel Index (BI) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Life (IADL) scale using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r = 0.69)
Excellent correlations between the SIS 3.0 Emotional factor and the HADS-Anxiety and HADS-Depression using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r = 0.68 and 0.67, respectively).

Subacute Stroke: (Richardson et al., 2016)

Time post stroke: baseline, 6 month and 12 month
Age in years, mean (SD)
- Baseline (n=164): 66.7 (12.8)
- 6 months (n=108): 66.52 (12.9)
- 12 months (n=37): 69.35 (13.6)
Excellent correlations using Pearson’s correlation coefficient upon admission, 6th month, and 12 month follow-up with the 5-level EuroQoL (r= 0.618 to 0.760).

Predictive Validity

Subacute Stroke: (Lee et al., 2015; n = 130)

Among the following outcome predictors, SIS showed greatest accuracy (70%) and highest cross-validated accuracy (81.43%) in predicting QOL post stroke.
- Personal parameters:
  - Age (20-75 years old)
  - Gender (16 male, 14 female)
  - Time since stroke onset
  - Education (elementary school to university)
  - MMSE score
- Functional outcomes (early):
  - Fugl-Meyer Assessment
  - Wolf Motor Function Test
  - Action Research Arm Test
  - Functional Independence Measure
  - Motor Activity Log (Amount of Use and Quality of Movement)
  - ABILHAND
  - Physical function
  - SIS

Construct Validity

Stroke:

Convergent validity (Doyle et al, 2007, Chronic Stroke)

Excellent correlation between Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) and SIS total scores (r = -0.83)

(Duncan et al, 1999, Acute Stroke)

Most domains of the SIS can differentiate between patients with varying degrees of stroke severity

(Carod-Artal et al, 2009, Chronic Stroke)

Correlation between proxy ratings and stroke functional measures tended to be slightly lower than for patient-based self assessment
Correlations were observed between functional status and the following SIS proxy-version domains:
- Mobilty (r = -0.73) Excellent
- ADL/IADL (r = -0.69) Excellent
- Strength (r = -0.44) Adequate
- Hand function (r = -0.44) Adequate
Correlations were observed between the Barthel Index and the following SIS proxy-domains:
- Mobility (r = 0.80) Excellent
- ADL/IADL (r = 0.74) Excellent
- Strength (r = 0.52) Adequate
- Hand function (r = 0.52) Adequate
Poor correlation between the HADS-Depression subscale and the SIS emotion domain were observed (r = -0.20)

Acute Stroke: (MacIsaac et al. 2016; n=5549)

Average age of participants: 68.5 years
Excellent correlations with the following measures:
- mRS (p=-0.87, -0.80, respectively)
- BI (p=0.89, 0.80)
- NIHSS (p=-0.77, -0.73)
- EQ-5D (p=0.88, 0.82)
- EQ-VAS (p=0.73, 0.72)

Subacute Stroke: (MacIsaac et al., 2016; n=332)

Average age of participants: 65.7 years
Time post stroke: baseline, 1 month, 3 months, 1 year
Excellent correlations with the following measures:
- BI (p=0.72, 0.65, respectively)
- EQ-5D (p=0.69, 0.69)
Moderate correlations with the following measures:
- SIS-VAS (p=0.56, 0.57)
- EQ-VAS (p=0.46, 0.40)

Content Validity

Development of the SIS was based on a study at the Landon Center on Aging, University of Kansas Medical Center (Duncan, Wallace, Studenski, Lai, & Johnson, 2001) using feedback from individual interviews with patients and focus group interviews with patients, caregivers, and health care professionals

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Acute Stroke: (Duncan et al, 1999; SIS version 2.0)

% of sample who encountered Floor or Ceiling effects
	Minor Stroke (n = 96)		Moderate Stroke (n = 144)
SIS	%Floor	%Ceiling	%Floor	%Ceiling
Strength	0	13.5	1.4	2.1
Hand Function	2	14.6	40.2	4.9
Mobility	0	6	0.6	2.1
ADL/IADL	0	2.1	2.8	1.4
Memory	0	12.5	0.6	10.4
Communication	0	35.4	1.4	25.7
Emotion	0	4.1	0	4.2
Participation	0	15.6	3.5	1.49
Physical	0	1	0.6	0
Barthel	0	64.6	0	24.8

Richardson et al. (2016) examined floor and ceiling effects of SIS in patients with subacute stroke at time of admission, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up (n = 164, 108, and 37 respectively).

Time post stroke: baseline, 6 month and 12 month
Age in years, mean (SD)
- Baseline (n=164): 66.7 (12.8)
- 6 months (n=108): 66.52 (12.9)
- 12 months (n=37): 69.35 (13.6)

Poor ceiling effects observed in the following domains:

Hand function delay: at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (25.0%, 36.4%, 37.8% respectively)
Memory and thinking domain: at 6 months and 12 months (22.2% and 21.6% respectively)
Mobility domain: at 6 months (20.4%)
ADL/IADL domain: at 12 months (21.6%)

No significant floor effects were observed at admission, 6-month follow-up, or 12-month follow-up

Responsiveness

Stroke:

(Duncan et al, 1999; SIS version 2.0, Acute Stroke)

For minor and moderate strokes the SIS is sensitive to change from 1 to 3 and 1 to 6 months post-stroke. However the SIS is not sensitive between 3 to 6 months for minor stroke, but does demonstrate sensitivity for this period with moderate stroke patients.

(Lin, Fu, et al, 2010, Chronic Stroke)

The hand function subscale showed medium responsiveness (SRM = 0.52; Wilcoxon Z = 4.24; p < 0.05)
Responsiveness of the SIS total score was significantly larger than that of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale total (SRM difference = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.02-0.71)

Chronic Stroke (Guidetti et al, 2014; n=204):

Time post injury: between 3 and 12 months
Age years; mean (SD)/median (range): 70 (14)/72 (24–93)
Domains of highest responsiveness were Participation and Recovery, reporting clinically significant positive change of 27.5% and 29.4% respectively, and negative change of 20% and 10.3%, respectively, from 3 to 12 months post stroke.
Strength and Hand Function change was also clinically significant from 3 to 12 months post stroke, with positive change of 23% and 18% respectively and negative change of 14.7% and 14.2% respectively.
Strength, Emotion and Recovery domains showed significant changes in scores from 3 to 12 months post-stroke (p=0.045, 0.001, and <0.001, respectively).

Domains of highest perceived impact (lowest mean scores) at 3 and 12 months include Strength, Hand Function and Participation.

Bibliography

Carod-Artal, F. J., Coral, L. F., et al. (2008). "The stroke impact scale 3.0: evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Brazilian version." Stroke 39(9): 2477-2484. Find it on PubMed

Carod-Artal, F. J., Coral, L. F., et al. (2009). "Self-and proxy-report agreement on the stroke impact scale." Stroke 40(10): 3308-3314.

Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., et al. (2007). "The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provided valid, reliable, and responsive score estimates of functioning and well-being during the first year of recovery from stroke." Qual Life Res 16(8): 1389-1398. Find it on PubMed

Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., et al. (2003). "Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(7): 950-963. Find it on PubMed

Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., et al. (2002). "Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale." Stroke 33(11): 2593-2599. Find it on PubMed

Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., et al. (1999). "The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change." Stroke 30(10): 2131-2140. Find it on PubMed

Edwards, B. and O'Connell, B. (2003). "Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample." Qual Life Res 12(8): 1127-1135. Find it on PubMed

Guidetti, S., Ytterberg, C., Ekstam, L., Johansson, U., & Eriksson, G. (2014). Changes in the impact of stroke between 3 and 12 months post-stroke, assessed with the Stroke Impact Scale. Journal of Rehabilitative Medicine, 46, 963-8. Link to PubMed

Huang, Y. H., Wu, C. Y., et al. (2010). "Predictors of change in quality of life after distributed constraint-induced therapy in patients with chronic stroke." Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24(6): 559-566. Find it on PubMed

Lee, H.-J. & Song, J.-M. (2015). The Korean language version of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: cross-cultural adaptation and translation. Journal of the Korean Society of Physical Medicine, 10(3), 47-55.

Lin, K. C., Fu, T., et al. (2010). "Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale." Qual Life Res 19(3): 435-443. Find it on PubMed

Lin, K. C., Fu, T., et al. (2010). "Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients." Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24(5): 486-492. Find it on PubMed

MacIsaac, R., Ali, M., Peters, M., English, C., Rodgers, H., Jenkinson, C., ... & VISTA Collaboration. (2016). Derivation and validation of a modified short form of the stroke impact scale. Journal of the American Heart Association, 5(5), e003108.

Mulder, M. & Nijland, R. (2016). Stroke Impact Scale. Journal of Physiotherapy, 62, 117. oi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2016.02.002

Richardson, M., Campbell, N., Allen, L., Meyer, M., & Teasell, R. (2016). The stroke impact scale: performance as a quality of life measure in a community-based stroke rehabilitation setting. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(14), 1425-30. doi: 10.310/09638288.2015.1102337 Link o PubMed

Stewart, A. L. and Ware, J. E. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes study approach, Duke University Press Books.

Vellone, E., Savini, S., Fida, R., Dickson, V. V., Melkus, G. D. E., Carod-Artal, F. J., ... & Alvaro, R. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of the stroke impact scale 3.0. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 30(3), 229-241.Link on PubMed

Last Updated

Expertise, Instruction and Mentorship

Upcoming Stroke Course

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Cost Description

Diagnosis/Conditions

Number of Items

Required Training

Instrument Reviewers

Body Part

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Internal Consistency

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Content Validity

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Responsiveness

Bibliography

Dynamic Lowenstein Occupat...

Performance Assessment of ...

Stroke-Specific Quality of...