Validity, reliability and Norwegian adaptation of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SS-QOL) scale

Synne Garder Pedersen, Guri Anita Heiberg, Jørgen Feldbæk Nielsen, Oddgeir Friborg, Henriette Holm Stabel, Audny Anke, Cathrine Arntzen, Synne Garder Pedersen, Guri Anita Heiberg, Jørgen Feldbæk Nielsen, Oddgeir Friborg, Henriette Holm Stabel, Audny Anke, Cathrine Arntzen

Abstract

Background: There is a paucity of stroke-specific instruments to assess health-related quality of life in the Norwegian language. The objective was to examine the validity and reliability of a Norwegian version of the 12-domain Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale.

Methods: A total of 125 stroke survivors were prospectively recruited. Questionnaires were administered at 3 months; 36 test-retests were performed at 12 months post stroke. The translation was conducted according to guidelines. The internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha; convergent validity, with item-to-subscale correlations; and test-retest, with Spearman's correlations. Scaling validity was explored by calculating both floor and ceiling effects. A priori hypotheses regarding the associations between the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life domain scores and scores of established measures were tested. Standard error of measurement was assessed.

Results: The Norwegian version revealed no major changes in back translations. The internal consistency values of the domains were Cronbach's alpha = 0.79-0.93. Rates of missing items were small, and the item-to-subscale correlation coefficients supported convergent validity (0.48-0.87). The observed floor effects were generally small, whereas the ceiling effects had moderate or high values (16%-63%). Test-retest reliability indicated stability in most domains, with Spearman's rho = 0.67-0.94 (all p < 0.001), whereas the rho was 0.35 (p < 0.05) for the 'Vision' domain. Hypothesis testing supported the construct validity of the scale. Standard error of measurement values for each domain were generated to indicate the required magnitudes of detectable change.

Conclusions: The Norwegian version of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale is a reliable and valid instrument with good psychometric properties. It is suited for use in health research as well as in individual assessments of persons with stroke.

Keywords: Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale; reliability; stroke; validity.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of persons with acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke registred in the county of Troms in Norway during the recruiting period.

References

    1. Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A Systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 2197–1223.
    1. Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R, et al. Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2014; 383: 245–254.
    1. an Mierlo ML, Schröder C, van Heugten CM, et al. The influence of psychological factors on health-related quality of life after stroke: A systematic review. Int J Stroke 2014; 9: 341–348.
    1. Alguren B, Fridlund B, Cieza A, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life after stroke: A 1-year prospective cohort study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26: 266–274.
    1. Carod-Artal FJ, Egido JA. Quality of life after stroke: The importance of a good recovery. Cerebrovasc Dis 2009; 27(Suppl. 1): 204–214.
    1. Salter KL, Moses MB, Foley NC, et al. Health-related quality of life after stroke: What are we measuring? Int J Rehabil Res 2008; 31: 111–117.
    1. Wiklund I. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: The example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004; 18: 351–363.
    1. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: S217–S132.
    1. Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, et al. Quality of life measurement after stroke: Uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke 2002; 33: 1348–1356.
    1. Williams LS. Health-related quality of life outcomes in stroke. Neuroepidemiology 1998; 17: 116–120.
    1. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, et al. Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke 1999; 30: 1362–1369.
    1. Boosman H, Passier PE, Visser-Meily JM, et al. Validation of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010; 81: 485–489.
    1. Wong GK, Lam SW, Ngai K, et al. Validation of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life for patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and proposed summary subscores. J Neurol Sci 2012; 320: 97–101.
    1. Muus I, Williams LS, Ringsberg KC. Validation of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL): Test of reliability and validity of the Danish version (SS-QOL-DK). Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 620–627.
    1. Akinpelu AO, Odetunde MO, Odole AC. Cross-cultural adaptation and initial validation of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale into the Yoruba language. Int J Rehabil Res 2012; 35: 339–344.
    1. Cruz-Cruz C, Martinez-Nuñez JM, Perez ME, et al. Evaluation of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SSQOL) Scale in Mexico: a preliminary approach. Value Health Reg Issue 2013; 2: 392–397.
    1. Ewert T, Stucki G. Validity of the SS-QOL in Germany and in survivors of hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 161–168.
    1. Hsueh IP, Jeng JS, Lee Y, et al. Construct validity of the stroke-specific quality of life questionnaire in ischemic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 1113–1118.
    1. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis. Scott Med J 1957; 2: 200–215.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke 2006; 37: 2348–2353.
    1. Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray AM, Bull L, et al. Quality of life after TIA and stroke: Ten-year results of the Oxford vascular study. Neurology 2013; 81: 1588–1595.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 22.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539–549.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34–42.
    1. Williams LS, Redmon G, Saul DC, et al. Reliability and telephone validity of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SS-QOL) scale. Stroke 2001; 32: 339.
    1. Muus I, Ringsberg KC. Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale: Danish adaptation and a pilot study for testing psychometric properties. Scand J Caring Sci 2005; 19: 140–147.
    1. Williams LS, Redmon G, Martinez B, et al. Proxy ratings of stroke-specific quality of life (SS-QOL) stores. Stroke 2000; 31: 301.
    1. von Steinbuechel N, Wilson L, Gibbons H, et al. QOLIBRI overall scale: A brief index of health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012; 83: 1041–1047.
    1. Polinder S, Haagsma JA, van Klaveren D, et al. Health-related quality of life after TBI: A systematic review of study design, instruments, measurement properties, and outcome. Popul Health Metr 2015; 13: 4.
    1. Wong GK, Lam SW, Ngai K, et al. Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) Overall Scale for patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21: 954–956.
    1. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.
    1. Brazier J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
    1. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health Econ 1999; 8: 41–51.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–370.
    1. Soberg HL, Roe C, Anke A, et al. Health-related quality of life 12 months after severe traumatic brain injury: A prospective nationwide cohort study. J Rehabil Med 2013; 45: 785–791.
    1. Aben I, Verhey F, Lousberg R, et al. Validity of the beck depression inventory, hospital anxiety and depression scale, SCL-90, and hamilton depression rating scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics 2002; 43: 386–393.
    1. Oyane NM, Bjelland I, Pallesen S, et al. Seasonality is associated with anxiety and depression: The Hordaland health study. J Affect Disord 2008; 105: 147–155.
    1. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007; 46: 1–18.
    1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417–1432.
    1. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 2013; 22: 1889–1905.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
    1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541–546.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 737–745.
    1. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, et al. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas 2013; 76: 913–934.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa