4.7 Article

Simplified Modified Rankin Scale Questionnaire Reproducibility Over the Telephone and Validation With Quality of Life

Journal

STROKE
Volume 42, Issue 8, Pages 2276-2279

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.613273

Keywords

clinimetrics; modified Rankin Scale; outcome assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-The simplified modified Rankin Scale questionnaire (smRSq) enables a reliable and rapid determination of the modified Rankin Scale score after stroke. We test the reliability and validity of a slightly revised smRSq. Methods-Fifty consecutive outpatients 4.83 +/- 3.00 months after stroke were scored with a slightly revised smRSq by 3 raters selected consecutively from a list of 10: 4 stroke faculty, 3 neurology residents, 2 medial students, and 1 stroke research coordinator. Two ratings were in person within 20 minutes of each other and 1 was by telephone 1 to 3 days later. The telephone rating also included a quality of life scale, the Short-Form-12v2. Each rater was blinded to the other raters' scores. Results-The average estimated time to administer the smRSq was 1.29 minutes (range, 0.50 to 2.25 minutes). The in-person raters agreed 78% (kappa=0.71; CI, 0.57 to 0.86 and weighted kappa [kappa(w)]=0.86; CI, 0.79 to 0.94). The first in-person and telephone raters agreed 82% (kappa=0.76; CI, 0.63 to 0.90 and kappa(w)=0.87; CI, 0.79 to 0.95). The second in-person and telephone rates agreed 82% (kappa=0.77; CI, 0.63 to 0.90 and kappa(w)=0.89; CI, 0.82 to 0.96). The smRSq correlated with the physical (r=-0.50, P=0.005) than the mental (r=-0.36, P=0.048) components of the Short-Form-12v2. Conclusions-The slightly revised smRSq appears to be useful in clinical stroke; it has excellent reliability in person and by telephone, can usually be administered in <1.5 minutes by a wide variety of raters, and correlates with quality of life. (Stroke. 2011;42:2276-2279.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available