Cross-validation of the factorial validity of the stroke impact scale 3.0 in patients with stroke

You can check it out here.  Stroke Impact Scale 3.0

To me this is totally wrong way to measure it. It is a binary question. ARE YOU 100% RECOVERED? YES/NO?

 Cross-validation of the factorial validity of the stroke impact scale 3.0 in patients with stroke

American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) , Volume 75(2) , Pgs. 7502205070.

NARIC Accession Number: J86222.  What's this?
ISSN: 0272-9490.
Author(s): Lee, Shih-Chieh ; Lin, Gong-Hong ; Huang, Yi-Jing ; Huang, Sheau-Ling ; Chou, Chia-Yeh ; Chiang, Hsin-Yu ; Hsieh, Ching-Lin.
Publication Year: 2021.
Number of Pages: 10.

Abstract: 

Study examined the underlying structure of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (SIS-3.0), a promising outcome measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for clients with stroke, by comparing the currently available eight- and four-domain structures simultaneously. This was a secondary data analysis of responses to the SIS-3.0 from a previous psychometric validation study. In that study, 263 patients with stroke were recruited from the rehabilitation wards (inpatients) and neurology and rehabilitation clinics (outpatients) of five general hospitals in northern and southern Taiwan. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the eight- and four-domain structures of the SIS-3.0. Four fit indices were considered simultaneously to examine the model fits of both structures: (1) chi-squared value adjusted for model complexity, (2) comparative fit index, (3) root mean square (RMS) error of approximation, and (4) standardized RMS residual. The eight- and four-domain structures of the SIS-3.0 were not supported by all four indices. The unidimensionality of each domain in the two structures was not supported. Neither the eight- nor the four-domain structure of the SIS-3.0 was supported, suggesting that scores may not provide valid assessments of HRQOL in clients with stroke. Further modification and validation of the SIS-3.0 are warranted. These findings suggest that the eight- and four-domain scores of the SIS-3.0 may not be valid. Therefore, until more supporting evidence is developed, these scores should be interpreted cautiously regarding clients’ HRQOL; alternatively, other measures could be used.
Descriptor Terms: DAILY LIVING, FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION, MEASUREMENTS, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, OUTCOMES, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, QUALITY OF LIFE, STROKE.


Can this document be ordered through NARIC's document delivery service*?: Y.

Citation: Lee, Shih-Chieh , Lin, Gong-Hong , Huang, Yi-Jing , Huang, Sheau-Ling , Chou, Chia-Yeh , Chiang, Hsin-Yu , Hsieh, Ching-Lin. (2021). Cross-validation of the factorial validity of the stroke impact scale 3.0 in patients with stroke.  American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) , 75(2), Pgs. 7502205070. Retrieved 5/18/2021, from REHABDATA database.
 

Benefits of virtual reality based cognitive rehabilitation through simulated activities of daily living: a randomized controlled trial with stroke patients

Small sample but I bet your doctor won't take a chance and implement in your hospital because they are so goddamned lazy and incompetent  that they will wait decades waiting for SOMEONE ELSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 

Benefits of virtual reality based cognitive rehabilitation through simulated activities of daily living: a randomized controlled trial with stroke patients

• Ana Lúcia Faria†Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
• Andreia Andrade†,
• Luísa Soares and
• Sergi Bermúdez i Badia

†Contributed equally

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation201613:96

DOI: 10.1186/s12984-016-0204-z

©  The Author(s). 2016

Received: 4 November 2015

Accepted: 25 October 2016

Published: 2 November 2016

Abstract

Background

Stroke is one of the most common causes of acquired disability, leaving numerous adults with cognitive and motor impairments, and affecting patients’ capability to live independently. There is substancial evidence on post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation benefits, but its implementation is generally limited by the use of paper-and-pencil methods, insufficient personalization, and suboptimal intensity. Virtual reality tools have shown potential for improving cognitive rehabilitation by supporting carefully personalized, ecologically valid tasks through accessible technologies. Notwithstanding important progress in VR-based cognitive rehabilitation systems, specially with Activities of Daily Living (ADL’s) simulations, there is still a need of more clinical trials for its validation. In this work we present a one-month randomized controlled trial with 18 stroke in and outpatients from two rehabilitation units: 9 performing a VR-based intervention and 9 performing conventional rehabilitation.

Methods

The VR-based intervention involved a virtual simulation of a city – Reh@City - where memory, attention, visuo-spatial abilities and executive functions tasks are integrated in the performance of several daily routines. The intervention had levels of difficulty progression through a method of fading cues. There was a pre and post-intervention assessment in both groups with the Addenbrooke Cognitive Examination (primary outcome) and the Trail Making Test A and B, Picture Arrangement from WAIS III and Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (secondary outcomes).

Results

A within groups analysis revealed significant improvements in global cognitive functioning, attention, memory, visuo-spatial abilities, executive functions, emotion and overall recovery in the VR group. The control group only improved in self-reported memory and social participation. A between groups analysis, showed significantly greater improvements in global cognitive functioning, attention and executive functions when comparing VR to conventional therapy.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that cognitive rehabilitation through the Reh@City, an ecologically valid VR system for the training of ADL’s, has more impact than conventional methods.

Trial registration

This trial was not registered because it is a small sample study that evaluates the clinical validity of a prototype virtual reality system.

Eclectic/mixed model method for upper extremity functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study

Just the definition of eclectic means this research would not be able to attribute recovery to any specific intervention. It should never have been allowed to proceed. Still not using objective endpoints for measuring. 

Eclectic/mixed model method for upper extremity functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study

K Vijaya Kumar¹, Abraham M Joshua², Rakshith Kedambadi³, P Prasanna Mithra^4
1 Department of Physiotherapy, Center for Basic Sciences, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
² Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
³ Department of Neurology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
⁴ Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication

13-Jan-2017

Correspondence Address:
K Vijaya Kumar
Department of Physiotherapy, Center for Basic Sciences, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangaluru, Karnataka
India

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Check

DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.198357

Abstract

Background: Eclectic treatment method is a flexible approach that uses techniques drawn from various schools of thought involving several treatment methods and allows the therapist to adapt to each client's individual needs. Wider application for eclectic approach is however limited in stroke rehabilitation.
Aim: The objective is to find out whether eclectic approach improves upper extremity (UE) functional recovery in acute stroke rehabilitation.  
Methodology: Twenty-five postacute unilateral supratentorial stroke subjects recruited from tertiary care hospitals recovered with Stage 2–5 in Brunnstorm stage of UE motor recovery (BRS-UE) underwent 45 min of eclectic approach for UE every day involving seven different treatment methods (5 min for each method) for 6 days consecutively. The outcome was UE subscale of the Fugl-Meyer Motor test (UE-FM), UE subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (UE-STREAM), Wolf Motor Function test (WMFT-FAS), and Stroke Impact Scale-16 (SIS-16) was collected at the end of the sixth session.  
Results: All the participants showed significant improvement in all the outcome measures. The Stage 2 and 3 subjects showed UE-STREAM (P = 0.007) WMFT-FAS (P < 0.001), SIS (P = 0.023) respectively and for Stage 4 and 5 the subjects have shown UE FM (P < 0.001), WMFT-FAS (P < 0.001), SIS (P = 0.004) with large magnitude of treatment effect for all stages of BRS-UE. Conclusion: Our study findings are in favor of integrating eclectic approach than single intervention/approach in clinical practice to improve the UE functional recovery for motor rehabilitation when the stroke occurs.

Keywords: Eclectic approach, stroke, upper extremity interventions

How to cite this article: Kumar K V, Joshua AM, Kedambadi R, Mithra P P. Eclectic/mixed model method for upper extremity functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study. J Nat Sc Biol Med 2017;8:75-81

How to cite this URL: Kumar K V, Joshua AM, Kedambadi R, Mithra P P. Eclectic/mixed model method for upper extremity functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study. J Nat Sc Biol Med [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Jan 19];8:75-81. Available from: http://www.jnsbm.org/text.asp?2017/8/1/75/198357