Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of SATIS-Stroke for Use in Brazil: A Satisfaction Measure of Activities and Participation in Stroke Survivors

Abstract

Introduction. SATIS-Stroke was developed to measure satisfaction regarding activities and participation among stroke survivors based on the concepts contained in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. However, this measure is only available in English and French. Objective. Perform the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of SATIS-Stroke to Brazilian Portuguese and test the preliminary reliability of this measure. Methods. The translation process followed standardized guidelines and consisted of six phases: initial translation, back-translation, analysis of expert committee, test of final version, submission, and assessment of all written reports. To test the preliminary test-retest reliability, the measure was administered by a single observer on two occasions with an interval of 7 to 14 days for the determination of intraobserver agreement and administered again by a second observer for the determination of interobserver agreement. Reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. All stages of the cross-cultural adaptation process were respected and the final translated version of SATIS-Stroke exhibited semantic, idiomatic, cultural, and conceptual equivalence to the original version. The preliminary analysis revealed excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability (ICC = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83-0.97, p = 0.001 and ICC = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.74-0.96; p = 0.001, respectively). The items demonstrated adequate internal consistency, although ceiling and floor effects were considered beyond acceptable standards for some items. In the exploratory factor analysis, three factors were extracted that aggregated more than one construct to each component, but all were related to the “Activities and Participation” component of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Conclusion. The final version of the SATIS-Stroke scale in Brazilian Portuguese proved to be adequate and reliable for use on the Brazilian population. Further studies are underway to give continuity to the validation process and analyze the others measurement properties of the scale in the Brazilian population.

Does Residing in Environments of Different Metropolises in a Developing Country exert an Impact on Disability after Stroke?

“…Despite these limitations, the present findings are extremely relevant, since motor impairment and the ability to walk explained 77.9% of post-stroke disability in the chronic phase, which is higher than the predictive value reported in previously published studies with similar objectives (Rochette, Desrosiers & Noreau, 2001;Pereira et al, 2019).…”

“…However, it should be noted that the measure employed to measure participation refers to the score on a health-related quality of life questionnaire, which has previously been used for this purpose (Salter et al, 2005a;Silva et al, 2015). Therefore, the score of the questionnaire is related to factors associated with other components of the ICF model (Pereira et al, 2019), which is likely why it was in line with other measures and was not retained in the implication test of the association diagram. Future analysis models of the association between disability and the environment should consider more specific measures of participation after a stroke, such as SATIS-Stroke, which measures satisfaction obtained in activities and participation after a stroke (Pereira et al, 2019).…”

Psychometric properties of the Chinese (Cantonese) version of the Upper Extremity Functional Index in people with chronic stroke

“…The reliability was defined as excellent (ICC > 0.90), good (ICC: 0.75-0.90), moderate (ICC: 0.50-0.75) and poor (ICC < 0.50) (46). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α coefficient, which was rated as follows: very good (0.90-0.95), good (0.80-0.89), fair (0.70-0.79), weak (0.60-0.69) and unacceptable (<0.60) (47). The standard error of measurement (SEM) relative to the total score was rated as follows: very good (<5%), good (5-10%), doubtful (>10-20%) and negative (>20%) (48).…”