Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Stroke | Research

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Trunk Impairment Scale in people with a stroke

Authors: Jie Zhao, Janita Pak Chun Chau, Yuli Zang, Kai Chow Choi, Rong He, Yali Zhao, Xiaoqi Xiang, Qin Li, David R. Thompson

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) has been translated into Chinese, but the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the TIS (TIS-C) have not yet been established. We aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the TIS-C for assessing sitting balance among Chinese people with a stroke.

Methods

A descriptive, cross-sectional design was used. We recruited a convenience sample of 170 subacute stroke patients aged 18 years or over from the neurology departments of four traditional Chinese medicine hospitals in China. Patients completed the TIS-C, the Berg Balance Scale and the Modified Barthel Index. The psychometric properties of the TIS-C were examined to establish test–retest reliability, internal consistency, equivalence, and content, criterion, and construct validity.

Results

Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.75 to 0.89 and from 0.90 to 0.97, respectively. The TIS-C Cronbach α was 0.86. The strong correlation between the total score of the TIS-C and the Berg Balance Scale (r_s = 0.81, p < 0.001) or Modified Barthel Index (r_s = 0.84, p < 0.001) suggested good concurrent and convergent validity, respectively. Known-group validity was supported by the significant difference (p < 0.001) in TIS-C scores between participants with mild and moderate stroke.

Conclusions

The TIS-C is a valid and reliable tool for assessing static and dynamic sitting balance as well as coordination of trunk movement among stroke survivors with mild and moderate stroke.

Johnson CO, Nguyen M, Roth GA, Nichols E, Alam T, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(5):439–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1.CrossRef

World Stroke Organization. Statement on stroke care in China. https://www.world-stroke.org/news-and-blog/news/statement-on-stroke-care-in-china-june. Accessed 2 Feb 2021.

Schmid AA, Puymbroeck MV, Altenburger PA, Schalk NL, Dierks TA, Miller KK, et al. Poststroke balance improves with yoga: a pilot study. Stroke. 2012;43(9):2402–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.658211.

Morgan P. The relationship between sitting balance and mobility outcome in stroke. Aust J Physiother. 1994;40(2):91–6.CrossRef

Tyson S, Hanley M, Chillala J, Selley AB, Tallis RC. The relationship between balance, disability, and recovery after stroke: predictive validity of the brunel balance assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(4):341–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968306296966.CrossRefPubMed

Yamasaki HR, An Q, Kinomoto M, Takahashi K, Fujii T, Kogami H, et al. Organization of functional modularity in sitting balance response and gait performance after stroke. Clin Biomech. 2019;67:61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.04.022.CrossRef

Tsang YL, Mak MK. Sit-and-reach test can predict mobility of patients recovering from acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:94–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00377-0.CrossRefPubMed

Gorman SL, Radtka S, Melnick ME, Abrams GM, Byl NN. Development and validation of the function in sitting test in adults with acute stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2010;34:150–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181f0065f.CrossRefPubMed

Katz-Leurer M, Fisher I, Neeb M, Schwartz I, Carmeli E. Reliability and validity of the modified functional reach test at the sub-acute stage post-stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:243–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280801927830.CrossRef

10.

Birnbaum M, Hill K, Kinsella R, Black S, Clark R, Brock K. Comprehensive clinical sitting balance measures for individuals following stroke: a systematic review on the methodological quality. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(6):616–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1261947.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Verheyden G, Nieuwboer A, Mertin J, Preger R, Kiekens C, De Weerdt W. The trunk impairment scale: a new tool to measure motor impairment of the trunk after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(3):326–34. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr733oa.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lombardi B, Paci M. The Italian version of the Trunk Impairment Scale: development and psychometric properties. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53(4):516–520. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04371-4

13.

Park JY, Chun MH, Kim YM, Kang SH. Trunk Impairment Scale for evaluation of functional improvement in acute stroke patients. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2010;34(3):278–84.

14.

Sag S, Buyukavci R, Sahin F, Sag MS, Dogu B, Kuran B. Assessing the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Trunk Impairment Scale in stroke patients. North Clin Istanbul. 2019;6(2):156–165. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2018.01069

15.

Liu, ZY. Study on the effect of trunk control training on balance and activities of daily living function in stroke patients [dissertation]. Baotou: Inner Mongolia University; 2017. Chinese

16.

Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015;22(4):195–201. https://doi.org/10.4103/1117-1936.173959.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lynn M. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382–5.CrossRef

18.

Sousa VRW. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, Ward NS, Wolf SL, Borschmann K, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: The stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(5):444–50.CrossRef

20.

Wu S, Yan T, Huang L. The validity and reliability of the abbreviated Mental Test Scale. Chin J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;25(3):140–2.

21.

Rost NS, Bottle A, Lee JM, Randall M, Middleton S, Shaw L, et al. Stroke severity is a crucial predictor of outcome: an international prospective validation study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(1):e002433. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.115.002433.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Wang YL. Evaluation method of neurorehabilitation. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2015. p. 65.

23.

Berg K. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Canada. 1989;41(6):304–11.CrossRef

24.

Jin D, Yan T, Zeng H. Validity and reliability of Berg balance function. Chines J Rehabil Med. 2003;18(1):25–7.

25.

Yu M. Validity and reliability of the simplified Chinese version of Modified Barthel Index for Chinese stroke patients [dissertation]. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-Sen University; 2006. Chinese

26.

Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52(4):281–302.CrossRef

27.

Hopkins W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30:1–15.CrossRef

28.

Verheyden, G. Trunk Impairment Scale: instruction video [web streaming video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9tiR-V2UTM. Accessed 2 Feb 2021.

29.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRef

31.

Nunnally JC. An overview of psychological measurement Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Boston, MA: Springer; 1978.

32.

Verheyden G, Kersten P. Investigating the internal validity of the Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) using Rasch analysis: the TIS 2.0. Disbil Rehabil. 2010;32(25):2127–37. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.483038.CrossRef

33.

Cabanas-Valdés R, Urrútia G, Bagur-Calafat C, Caballero-Gómez FM, Germán-Romero A, Girabent-Farrés M. Validation of the Spanish version of the Trunk Impairment Scale Version 2.0 (TIS 2.0) to assess dynamic sitting balance and coordination in poststroke adult patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23(4):225–32.CrossRef

34.

Gjelsvik B, Breivik K, Verheyden G, Smedal T, Hofstad H, Inger L. The trunk impairment scale - modified to ordinal scales in the norwegian version. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(16):1385–95. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.645113.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.PubMed

36.

Xiang H, Tao X, Song T. Progress in the study of sitting balance and evaluation methods for stroke. Chinese J Rehabil Med. 2020;35(2):248–52.

37.

Demir YP, Yildirim SA. Assessment of trunk control in patients with neuromuscular diseases: validity and reliability of the Trunk Impairment Scale. Turkish J Neurol Noroloji Derg. 2018;24(2):130–6. https://doi.org/10.4274/tnd.36024.CrossRef

38.

Verheyden G, Hughes J, Jelsma J, Nieuwboer A, De Weerdt W. Assesing motor impairment of the trunk in patients with traumatic brain injury: reliability and validity of the Trunk Impairment Scale. South Afr J Physiother. 2006;62(2):23–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v62i2.153.CrossRef

39.

Verheyden G, Willems A-M, Ooms L, Nieuwboer A. Validity of the trunk impairment scale as a measure of trunk performance in people with parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10):1304–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.772.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Kostanjsek N. Use of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) as a conceptual framework and common language for disability statistics and health information systems. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(Suppl 4):S3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S4-S3.

Title: Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Trunk Impairment Scale in people with a stroke
Authors: Jie Zhao
Janita Pak Chun Chau
Yuli Zang
Kai Chow Choi
Rong He
Yali Zhao
Xiaoqi Xiang
Qin Li
David R. Thompson
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Stroke
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01730-y

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Trunk Impairment Scale in people with a stroke

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Validation of an 8-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-8) for people with schizophrenia in China

Attachment: the mediating role of hope, religiosity, and life satisfaction in older adults

Evaluating the impact of social deprivation on Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey Scores

Exploring what is important to patients with regards to quality of life after experiencing a lower limb reconstructive procedure: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Psychometric properties of the short form of the Stroke Impact Scale in German-speaking stroke survivors

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7