OBJECTIVES:To assess the ability of gait speed alone and a three-item lower extremity performance battery to predict 12-month rates of hospitalization, decline in health, and decline in function in primary care settings serving older adults. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care programs of a Medicare health maintenance organization (HMO) and Veterans Affairs (VA) system. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred eighty-seven persons aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Lower extremity performance Established Population for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) battery including gait speed, chair stands, and tandem balance tests; demographics; health care use; health status; functional status; probability of repeated admission scale (Pra); and primary physician's hospitalization risk estimate. RESULTS: Veterans had poorer health and higher use than HMO members. Gait speed alone and the EPESE battery predicted hospitalization; 41% (21/51) of slow walkers (gait speed Ͻ 0.6 m/s) were hospitalized at least once, compared with 26% (70/266) of intermediate walkers (0.6-1.0 m/s) and 11% (15/136) of fast walkers ( Ͼ 1.0 m/s) ( P Ͻ .0001). The relationship was stronger in the HMO than in the VA. Both performance measures remained independent predictors after accounting for Pra. The EPESE battery was superior to gait speed when both Pra and primary physician's risk estimate were included. Both performance measures predicted decline in function and health status in both health systems. Performance measures, alone or in combination with self-report measures, were more able to predict outcomes than self-report alone. CONCLUSION: Gait speed and a physical performance battery are brief, quantitative estimates of future risk for hospitalization and decline in health and function in clinical populations of older adults. Physical performance measures might serve as easily accessible "vital signs" to screen older adults in clinical settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:314-322, 2003.

Current stroke outcome measures are unable to detect some consequences of stroke that affect patients, families, and providers. The objective of this study was to ensure the content validity of a new stroke outcome measure. This was a qualitative study using individual interviews with patients and focus group interviews with patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. Participants included 30 individuals with mild and moderate stroke, 23 caregivers, and 9 stroke experts. Qualitative analysis of the individual and focus group interviews generated a list of potential items. Consensus panels reviewed the potential items, established domains for the measure, developed item scales, and decided on mechanisms for administration and scoring. Although the participants with stroke appeared highly recovered based on scores from conventional stroke assessments (Barthel Index and NIH Stroke Scale), stroke survivors and their caregivers identified numerous persisting impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. In general, stroke survivors described themselves as only about 50% recovered and reported that they had difficulty in activities in which they were not independent. To fully assess the impact of stroke on patients, we used the results of this qualitative study to develop a new stroke-specific outcome, the Stroke Impact Scale.

Background and Purpose-To be useful for clinical research, an outcome measure must be feasible to administer and have sound psychometric attributes, including reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. This study characterizes the psychometric properties of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) Version 2.0. Methods-Version 2.0 of the SIS is a self-report measure that includes 64 items and assesses 8 domains (strength, hand function, ADL/IADL, mobility, communication, emotion, memory and thinking, and participation). Subjects with mild and moderate strokes completed the SIS at 1 month (nϭ91), at 3 months (nϭ80), and at 6 months after stroke (nϭ69). Twenty-five subjects had a replicate administration of the SIS 1 week after the 3-month or 6-month test. We evaluated internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The validity of the SIS domains was examined by comparing the SIS to existing stroke measures and by comparing differences in SIS scores across Rankin scale levels. The mixed model procedure was used to evaluate responsiveness of the SIS domain scores to change. Results-Each of the 8 domains met or approached the standard of 0.9 ␣-coefficient for comparing the same patients across time. The intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability of SIS domains ranged from 0.70 to 0.92, except for the emotion domain (0.57). When the domains were compared with established outcome measures, the correlations were moderate to strong (0.44 to 0.84). The participation domain was most strongly associated with SF-36 social role function. SIS domain scores discriminated across 4 Rankin levels. SIS domains are responsive to change due to ongoing recovery. Responsiveness to change is affected by stroke severity and time since stroke. Conclusions-This new, stroke-specific outcome measure is reliable, valid, and sensitive to change. We are optimistic about the utility of measure. More studies are required to evaluate the SIS in larger and more heterogeneous populations and to evaluate the feasibility and validity of proxy responses for the most severely impaired patients. (Stroke. 1999;30:2131-2140.)

Background and Purpose-Many stroke survivors have minimal to moderate neurological deficits but are physically deconditioned and have a high prevalence of cardiovascular problems; all of these are potentially modifiable with exercise. The purposes of this randomized, controlled pilot study were (1) to develop a home-based balance, strength, and endurance program; (2) to evaluate the ability to recruit and retain stroke subjects; and (3) to assess the effects of the interventions used. Methods-Twenty minimally and moderately impaired stroke patients who had completed inpatient rehabilitation and who were 30 to 90 days after stroke onset were randomized to a control group or to an experimental group that received a therapist-supervised,