Background/Aims: Stroke and aphasia rehabilitation aims to improve people’s quality of life. Yet, scales for measuring health-related quality of life in stroke typically exclude people with aphasia. They are also primarily available in English. An exception is the 39-item generic version of the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39g). This scale has been tested with people with aphasia; it has been adapted for use in many countries including Greece. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Greek SAQOL-39g. Methods: An interview-based psychometric study was carried out. Participants completed: receptive subtests of the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test, the Greek SAQOL-39g, the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, the Frenchay Activities Index, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Barthel Index. Results: 86 people took part; 26 provided test-retest reliability data. The Greek SAQOL-39g demonstrated excellent acceptability (minimal missing data; no floor/ceiling effects), test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96 (overall scale), 0.83–0.99 (domains)] and internal consistency [Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96 (overall scale), 0.92–0.96 (domains)]. There was strong evidence for convergent [r = 0.53–0.80 (overall scale), 0.54–0.89 (domains)] and discriminant validity [r = 0.52 (overall scale), 0.04–0.48 (domains)]. Conclusion: The Greek SAQOL-39g is a valid and reliable scale. It is a promising measure for use in stroke and aphasia treatment prioritization, outcome measurement and service evaluation.

Health related quality of life (HRQL) measures are increasingly used to evaluate stroke interventions. People with severe aphasia after stroke may be unable to self-report on such measures, necessitating the use of proxy respondents. This study explored the level of agreement between people with aphasia and their proxies on the Greek Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 generic version (SAQOL-39g) and whether this agreement was influenced by proxy levels of depression and carer strain. Methods: Participants were people with aphasia (PWA) who were over six months post-stroke and medically stable. Proxies were nominated by the PWA and had to see them at least twice a week. PWA completed the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test and the Greek SAQOL-39g. Proxies completed the Greek SAQOL-39g proxy version, the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Caregiver Strain Index. Results: 23 pairs of people with aphasia and their proxies took part. Proxies rated people with aphasia as more severely affected than they rated themselves. The difference was significant for the overall scale and the physical and communication domains (p < 0.05); yet the bias introduced by these differences was small to moderate, with effect sizes ranging from 0.15 to 0.47. The strength of the agreement between people with aphasia and proxies was excellent for the overall scale and all three domains (ICC = 0.79-0.97). The level of agreement was not associated with carer strain or emotional distress. We conclude that clinicians and researchers can use proxy ratings to evaluate the quality of life of people with severe aphasia but need to be aware of trends in proxy reporting and take these into account when interpreting data.