Measurement Characteristics and Clinical Utility of the Stroke Impact Scale

      The Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) is a multidimensional, stroke-specific, self-report outcome measure. There are 59 items in 8 domains including strength, hand function, activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, mobility, communication, emotion, memory and thinking, and participation/role function. Patients use a 5-point Likert scale to rate the level of difficulty they experience during each activity. Summative scores are generated for each domain. An additional item rates stroke recovery on a scale from 0 to 100. Adequate to excellent reliability has been reported.1,2 Normative data are available. Responsiveness data (minimal detectable change and minimal clinically important difference) have been reported for some domains of the measure.3 The test can be completed in 15 to 20 minutes. Mail, telephone, and proxy administration have been validated.1,4 A 16-item version measure (SIS-16) captures physical performance during daily activities.5 The cost of the measure for nonprofit users is free.
      A full review of the SIS as well as reviews of nearly 200 other instruments can be found at
      Please address correspondence to [email protected] .
      • 1.
        Carod-Artal FJ, Ferreira Coral L, Stieven Trizotto D, Menezes Moreira C. Self- and proxy-report agreement on the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2009;40:3308-3314.
      • 2.
        Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999;30(10):2131-2140.
      • 3.
        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;24:486-92.
      • 4.
        Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. Nov 2002;33(11):2593-2599.
      • 5.
        Fulk GD, Ludwig M, Dunnning K, Golden S, Boyne P, West T. How much change in the Stroke Impact Scale-16 is important to people who have experienced a stroke? Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. Nov-Dec 2010;17(6):477-483.
      • 6.
        Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Chen CL, Lee PC. Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Qual Life Res 2010;19:435-443.
      • 7.
        Huang YH, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Lin KC. Predictors of change in quality of life after distributed constraint-induced therapy in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010;24:559-66.
      • 8.
        Stewart AL, Ware JE. Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes study approach. Duke University Press; 1992.
      This instrument summary is designed to facilitate the selection of outcome measures by trained clinicians. The information contained in this summary represents a sample of the peer-reviewed research available at the time of this summary's publication. The information contained in this summary does not constitute an endorsement of this instrument for clinical practice. The views expressed are those of the summary authors and do not represent those of authors' employers, instrument owner(s), the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the Rehabilitation Measures Database, the United States Department of Education, or the Retirement Research Foundation. The information contained in this summary has not been reviewed externally.
      The Rehabilitation Measures Database and Instrument Summary Tear-sheets are funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, United States Department of Education through the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Improving Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes (H133B090024) and the Retirement Research Foundation (2011-027).