DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Korean language version of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: Cross-cultural adaptation and translation

Lee, Hae-jung;Song, Ju-min

  • Received : 2015.07.09
  • Accepted : 2015.07.27
  • Published : 2015.08.31

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=0.74), ADL (ICC=0.81), mobility (ICC=0.90), hand function (ICC=0.80) and social participation (ICC=0.79), communication (ICC=0.77) with total (ICC=0.76). However, domains of memory and thinking (ICC=0.66), and emotion (ICC=0.27) and showed poor reliability. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the Korean version of SIS 3.0 was successfully developed. Future study needed for obtaining the validity of the Korean version of SIS 3.0.

Keywords

Cross-cultural adaptation;Stoke impact scale;Stroke

References

  1. Bath PM, Lees KR. ABC of arterial and venous disease. Acute stroke. BMJ. 2000;320(7239):920-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7239.920
  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. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  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. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.513671
  4. Cieza A, Stucki G. New approaches to understanding the impact of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Prac Res Clin Rheumatol. 2004;18(2):141-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2004.02.003
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2
  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. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.30.10.2131
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501960410015399
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280400008537
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280400008545
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828040008552
  12. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.002
  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.