Cultural adaptation and validation of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 version in Uganda: A small-scale study

Background: Knowledge is scarce about the impact of stroke in Uganda, and culturally adapted, psychometrically tested patient-reported outcome measures are lacking. The Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 is recommended, but it has not been culturally adapted and validated in Uganda. Objective: To culturally adapt and determine the psychometric properties of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 in the Ugandan context on a small scale. Method: The Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 was culturally adapted to form Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 Uganda ( in English) by involving 25 participants in three different expert committees. Subsequently, Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 Uganda from English to Luganda language was done in accordance with guidelines. The first language in Uganda is English and Luganda is the main spoken language in Kampala city and its surroundings. Translation of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 Uganda ( both in English and Luganda) was then tested psychometrically by applying a Rasch model on data collected from 95 participants with stroke. Results: Overall, 10 of 59 (17%) items in the eight domains of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 were culturally adapted. The majority were 6 of 10 items in the domain Activities of Daily Living, 2 of 9 items in the domain Mobility, and 2 of 5 items in the domain Hand function. Only in two domains, all items demonstrated acceptable goodness of fit to the Rasch model. There were also more than 5% person misfits in the domains Participation and Emotion, while the Communication, Mobility, and Hand function domains had the lowest proportions of person misfits. The reliability coefficient was equal or larger than 0.90 in all domains except the Emotion domain, which was below the set criterion of 0.80 (0.75). Conclusion: The cultural adaptation and translation of Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 Uganda provides initial evidence of validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 when used in this context. The results provide support for several aspects of validity and precision but also point out issues for further adaptation and improvement of the Stroke Impact Scale.