How Much Change in the Stroke Impact Scale-16 Is Important to People Who Have Experienced a Stroke?

REFERENCES

• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hilari K, Byng S. Health-related quality of life in people with severe aphasia. Int J Lang Comm Dis. 2009;44:193–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel MD, Tilling K, Lawrence E, Rudd AG, Wolfe CDA, McKevitt C. Relationships between long-term stroke disability, handicap and health-related quality of life. Age Ageing. 2006;35:273–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owolabi MO. What are the consistent predictors of generic and specific post-stroke health-related quality of life? Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;29:105–110.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998;29: 986–991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon S, Duncan P, Studenski S, Perera S, Lai SM, Reker D. Measuring stroke impact with SIS: construct validity of SIS telephone administration. Qua! Life Res. 2006;15:367–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Reker DM, Horner RD, et al. Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:493–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai SM, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:1840–1844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai SM, Perera S, Duncan PW, Bode R. Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke. 2003;34:488–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950–963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster U. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, andsensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–2140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86:735–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fulk GD, Echternach IL. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of gait speed in individuals undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. 1 Neurol Phys Ther. 2008;32: 8–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, et al. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Phys Ther. 2010;90:196–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2006;31:598–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney LGW, M.P. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton GW, Keating IL. Number needed to treat: a statistic relevant for physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1214–1219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to changeof the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1197–1207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar