Stroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To 1) develop a short instrument (Stroke Impact Scale-16 [SIS-16]) to assess physical function in patients with stroke at approximately 1 to 3 months poststroke using items from the composite physical domain of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) version 3.0, and 2) compare the SIS-16 and a commonly used disability measure, the Barthel Index (BI), in terms of their ability to discriminate disability. METHODS: A total of 621 subjects enrolled in the GAIN Americas randomized stroke trial were included in this study. Rasch analysis, which models the probability of a subject's response to an item using both subject ability and item difficulty, was used to construct the SIS-16, describe its properties, and compare its ordering and range of item difficulties to those of the BI. Box plots and analysis of variance were used to examine differences in BI and SIS-16 scores across modified Rankin categories. RESULTS: The study sample had an average age of 68 +/- 12.4 years and 56% were men. Stroke diagnoses were classified as minor in 91 patients (NIH Stroke Scale score [NIHSS] 0 to 5), moderate in 304 (NIHSS 6 to 13), and major in 226 (NIHSS >/= 14). Twelve of the original 28 items in the SIS version 3.0 composite physical domain were eliminated to produce the SIS-16, with a minimal loss of reliability. As compared to the BI, the SIS-16 contains more difficult items that can differentiate patients with less severe limitations, and therefore has less pronounced ceiling effects. SIS-16 scores were significantly different across Rankin levels 0 to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, whereas BI was significantly different only across Rankin levels 0 to 2, 3, 4, and 5. CONCLUSION: Compared to the BI, the SIS-16 is an excellent collection of items suitable for assessing a wide range of physical function limitations of patients with stroke at 1 to 3 months poststroke. Because of a less pronounced ceiling effect, the SIS-16 can differentiate lower levels of disability as compared to the BI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
All measures used in the research were standardized and validated for stroke population and adapted to Spanish language.
“All measures used in the research were standardized and validated for stroke population and adapted to Spanish language [20–39].”
From Early Occupational Therapy Intervention post-stroke (EOTIPS): A randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 299
- Authors
- Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Bode, R. K., Perera, S., DeRosa, J., & the GAIN Americas Investigators
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2003-01-28
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 291-296
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2085484919
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 8.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- Stroke Impact Scale, stroke, physical function, disability assessment, Barthel Index, Rasch analysis, ceiling effect, modified Rankin Scale, stroke disability
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Canada, Demography, Double-Blind Method, Female, Glycine, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Indoles, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Severity of Illness Index, United States, Treatment Outcome, Glycine Agents, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review