JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Korean language version of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: Cross-cultural adaptation and translation
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Korean language version of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: Cross-cultural adaptation and translation
Lee, Hae-jung; Song, Ju-min;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
PURPOSE: Stoke is one of most common disabling conditions and it is still lacking of measuring patient`s functioning level. The aim of the study was to develop Korean language version of stroke impact scale 3.0. METHODS: Korean version of stroke impact scale 3.0 was developed in idiomatic modern Korean with a standard protocol of multiple forward and backward translations and an expert reviews to achieve equivalence with the original English version. Interviews with clinicians who were currently managing patients with stroke were also conducted for language evaluation. A reliability test was performed to make final adaptation using a pre-final version. To assess the reliability of the translated questionnaire, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for each domain of the scale. RESULTS: Thirty subjects (16 male, 14 female) aged from 20 to 75 years old participated to review the translated questionnaire. Reliability of each domain of the questionnaire was found to be good in strength (ICC
 Keywords
Cross-cultural adaptation;Stoke impact scale;Stroke;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Is the SIS 3.0 Valid for Use at a Rehabilitation Setting in Korea for Patients with Stroke?,;;

The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy, 2015. vol.27. 4, pp.252-257
 References
1.
Bath PM, Lees KR. ABC of arterial and venous disease. Acute stroke. BMJ. 2000;320(7239):920-3. crossref(new window)

2.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. crossref(new window)

3.
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): 2477-84. crossref(new window)

4.
Cieza A, Stucki G. New approaches to understanding the impact of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Prac Res Clin Rheumatol. 2004;18(2):141-54. crossref(new window)

5.
Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, et al. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(7):950-63. crossref(new window)

6.
Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, et al. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30(10):2131-40. crossref(new window)

7.
Geyh S, Kurt T, Brockow T, et al. Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on stroke using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36(SUPPL. 44):56-62. crossref(new window)

8.
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;2014:1-7.

9.
Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005a;27(4):191-207. crossref(new window)

10.
Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil. 2005b;27(6):315-40. crossref(new window)

11.
Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disabil Rehabil. 2005c;27(9):507-28. crossref(new window)

12.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-8. crossref(new window)

13.
Tse T, Douglas J, Lentin P, et al. Measuring participation after stroke: A review of frequently used tools. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1):177-92. crossref(new window)

14.
Vellone E, Savini S, Barbato N, et al. Quality of life in stroke survivors: first results from the reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0. Ann Ig. 2010;22(5):469-79.

15.
Waddell G. The back pain revolution. Edingurgh, Churchill Livingstone. 2004.

16.
WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva. World Health Organization. 2001.