ISSN: 1309 - 3843 E-ISSN: 1307 - 7384
FİZİKSEL TIP VE REHABİLİTASYON
BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ
www.jpmrs.com
Kayıtlı İndexler


ORIJINAL ARAŞTIRMA

Subjektif Fiziksel ve Sosyal Sonuç İndeksi’nin (SIPSO) Türkçe Adaptasyonu, Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliği
Turkish Adaptation, Validity and Reliability of the Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO)
Received Date : 09 Nov 2022
Accepted Date : 24 Jun 2023
Available Online : 07 Jul 2023
Doi: 10.31609/jpmrs.2022-94273 - Makale Dili: EN
J PMR Sci 2024;27(1):11-21.
ÖZET
Amaç: Subjektif Fiziksel ve Sosyal Sonuç İndeksi [Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO)], inme hastalarında topluma adaptasyon düzeyini ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olarak rapor edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, SIPSO’nun Türkçeye uyarlanmasını ve modern psikometrik analiz (Rasch analizi) kullanarak inme geçiren hastalarda güvenilirliğini ve geçerliliğini test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kültürlerarası adaptasyon, güncel önerilere göre yapıldı. İç yapı geçerliliği Rasch analizi, güvenilirlik iç tutarlılık ve Kişiden Ayrılma İndeksi [Person Separation Index (PSI)] ile değerlendirildi. Dış yapı geçerliliği, SIPSO ile Beck Depresyon Ölçeği [Beck Depression Scale (BDS)], Mini Mental Test, Fonksiyonel Bağımsızlık Ölçeği [Functional Independence Measure (FIM)], Barthel İndeksi [Barthel Index (BI)], Fonksiyonel Ambulasyon Ölçeği [Functional Ambulation Scale (FAS)], Rivermead Mobilite İndeksi [Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI)] ve İnme Etki Ölçeği 3.0 [Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (SIS 3.0)] arasındaki korelasyonlar analiz edilerek değerlendirildi. Test tekrar test güvenilirliği, sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı ve Rasch analizi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Toplumda yaşayan toplam 179 inme hastası dâhil edildi. SIPSO fiziksel alt ölçeğinin iç tutarlılığı, Cronbach’s α 0,92 ve PSI 0,95 ile mükemmel sonuç gösterdi. SIPSO sosyal alt ölçeğinin iç tutarlılığı, Cronbach’s α ve PSI 0,86 ile mükemmel sonuç gösterdi. Dış yapı geçerliliği, BDS, FIM, BI, FAS, RMI ve SIS 3.0 ölçekleri ile yüksek düzeyde korele idi (p<0,001). Sonuç: SIPSO’nun Türkçe versiyonu inmeli hastalarda aktivite ve katılımı ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçektir.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO) has been reported as a valid and reliable tool for measuring the level of community integration in stroke survivors. This study aims to adapt the SIPSO into the Turkish language and to test its reliability and validity in stroke survivors by using modern psychometric analysis (Rasch analysis). Material and Methods: The cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to the current recommendations. Internal construct validity was assessed by Rasch analysis, reliability by internal consistency and Person Separation Index (PSI). External construct validity was evaluated by analyzing correlations between the SIPSO and the Beck Depression Scale (BDS), Mini Mental Test, Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Barthel Index (BI), Functional Ambulation Scale (FAS), Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI), and the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (SIS 3.0). Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient and Rasch analysis. Results: A total of 179 community- dwelling stroke survivors were included. Internal consistency of the SIPSO physical subscale showed good to excellent results with Cronbach’s α of 0.92 and PSI of 0.95. The internal consistency of the SIPSO social subscale showed good to excellent with Cronbach’s α and PSI of 0.86. External construct validity was highly correlated with BDS, FIM, BI, FAS, RMI, and the SIS 3.0 scales (p<0.001). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the SIPSO is a valid and reliable scale for measuring activities and participition in patients with stroke.
REFERENCES
  1. World Report on Disability. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.
  2. Alguren B, Fridlund B, Cieza A, Sunnerhagen KS , Christensson L. Factors associated with health-related quality of life after stroke: a 1-year prospective cohort study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012;26:266-74. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  3. World Health Organization. 2001. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland.
  4. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:191-207. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  5. Geyh S, Kurt T, Brockow T, et al. Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on stroke using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference. J Rehabil Med. 2004;56-62. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  6. Walker N, Mellick D, Brooks C.A, Whiteneck GG. Measuring participation across impairment groups using the Craig Handicap Assessment Reporting Technique. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation 2003;82(12):936-41. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  7. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Studenski S, et al. Conceptualization of a new stroke-specific outcome measure: the stroke impact scale. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2001;8:19-33. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  8. Morake MD, Vivienne SA, Ann HL. The development of a community reintegration outcome measure to assess people with stroke living in low socioeconomic areas. Edorium J Disabil Rehabil. 2017;3:11-24. [Crossref] 
  9. Trigg R, Wood VA, Hewer RL. Social reintegration after stroke: the first stages in the development of the Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO). Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:341-53. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  10. Trigg R, Wood VA. The Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO): a new measure for use with stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:288-99. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  11. Kwong PW, Ng SS, Ng GY. An investigation of the psychometric properties of the Chinese (Cantonese) version of Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO). Clin Rehabil. 2017;31:1538-47. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186-91. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  13. Yavuzer G. Tıbbi rehabilitasyon alanında kullanılan ölçekler. Beyazova M, Gökçe-Kutsal Y, editörler. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Güneş Tıp Kitapevleri; 2011. p.3583-91.
  14. Hisli N. [Validity and reliability of the Beck Depression Inventory for university students]. Psikol Derg. 1989;7:3-13. [Link] 
  15. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, et al. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1226-32. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  16. Yavuzer, G. (1996). Nörorehabilitasyon hastalarının değerlendirimi ve izleminde Fonksiyonel Bağımsızlık Ölçeği ve Modifiye Barthel İndeksi'nin yeri (Tıpta uzmanlık tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Ankara. [Link] 
  17. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR. Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients. Standards for outcome assessment. Phys Ther. 1986;66:1530-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  18. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, et al. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:50-4. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  19. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, et al. Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection Americans Investigators. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950-63. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  20. Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications; 1988. [Crossref] 
  21. Masters G. A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149-74. [Crossref] 
  22. Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Kutlay S, et al. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:166. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  23. Fisher WP. Reliability statistics. Rasch Measure Trans. 1992;6:238. [Link] 
  24. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334. [Crossref] 
  25. Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM2020. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd. 2003. Freeman A, Van Der Vleuten C , Nouns Z, Ricketts C. 2010; 32(6), 451-455. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  26. Kersten P, Ashburn A, George S and Low J. The Subjective Index for Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO) in stroke: investigation of its subscale structure. BMC Neurol 2010;10:26. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  27. Teale EA, Munyombwe TM, Young JB. Scaling properties of the subjective index of physical and social outcome after stroke in a study population unselected by age. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2448-55. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  28. Kersten P, George S, Low J, et al. The Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome: its usefulness in a younger stroke population. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27:59-63. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  29. Galeoto G, Iori F, De Santis R, et al. The outcome measures for loss of functionality in the activities of daily living of adults after stroke: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2019;26:236-45. [Crossref]  [PubMed]