Cross-sectional study demonstrates the reliability and validity of the Chinese LiSat-11 in stroke survivors, highlighting its utility for measuring post-stroke life satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to develop a cross-cultural adaptation and to evaluate the validity and reliability of a Chinese version of the LiSat-11 test. METHODS: LiSat-11 was translated into Chinese according to standardized procedures. A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted to examine its reliability and validity, in accordance to COnsensus-based Standards for the election of health Measurements Instruments guidelines, among persons with stroke approximately 3 years after their discharge from rehabilitation. Participants completed the LiSat-11, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Barthel Index (BI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). To examine the test-retest reliability, thirty of these participants completed LiSat-11 again after 2 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 60 persons with stroke were recruited. The Chinese version of LiSat-11 demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas at 0.82. Ceiling effects were found in five of the eleven items of LiSat-11, and there was a floor effect in one item. LiSat-11 had moderate to high correlations with SF-36 with Spearman's correlation coefficient (rho) ranging from 0.44 to 0.73 (p < 0.01) in a concurrent validity test, and high correlations were also found between LiSat-11 and HADS-A/D in a convergent validity test with rho = -0.63/-0.67 (p < 0.01). Low correlations with NIHSS, BI and mRS were found in a divergent validity test, rho = -0.25, 0.17 and -0.26, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current study verified that the translated Chinese version of the Life Satisfaction Checklist-11 is a reliable and valid tool for measuring the life satisfaction of persons with chronic stroke.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: