Articles Vol. 66 No. CĐ12-NCKH 01/08/2025

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF VnRAs 2.0 - AN INTEGRATED SCALE OF DAILY LIVING FUNCTION FOR STROKE PATIENTS

Ton That Minh Dat1,2
1 University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University
2 Trường Đại học Y Dược, Đại học Huế
Corresponding author: ttmdat@huemed-univ.edu.vn
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v66iCD12.2922
26 Views
15 Downloads
Keywords
VnRAs 2.0 stroke rehabilitation activities of daily living reliability validity.
Abstract

Background: Accurate and culturally appropriate assessment of activities of daily living is essential for effective rehabilitation planning in stroke survivors. The VnRAs 2.0 is a 20-item instrument designed to evaluate both basic and instrumental activities of daily living in Vietnamese adults.

Objective: To assess the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity of VnRAs 2.0 in stroke patients.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 53 subacute and chronic stroke patients at Hue Rehabilitation Hospital from March to May 2025. Each participant was assessed twice with the VnRAs 2.0, 5-7 days apart. Convergent validity was examined through correlations with the Barthel index and the Lawton IADL scale. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, ICC, and Spearman’s correlation.

Results: The VnRAs 2.0 demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.965) and outstanding test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99). Strong correlations were observed with the Barthel index (r = 0.907) and the Lawton IADL scale (r = 0.944). Notably, the ceiling effect of VnRAs 2.0 was lower (3.8%) compared to the Barthel index (17%).

Conclusion: VnRAs 2.0 is a reliable, valid, and culturally relevant instrument for assessing daily living function in post-stroke Vietnamese patients. Its integration into both clinical practice and community-based rehabilitation is strongly recommended.

References
[1]
GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators. Global burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019. Lancet Neurol, 2021, 20 (10): 795-820. Google Scholar
[2]
Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet, 2011, 377 (9778): 1693-702. Google Scholar
[3]
Mahoney F.I, Barthel D.W. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J, 1965, 14: 61-5. Google Scholar
[4]
Lawton M.P, Brody E.M. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist, 1969, 9 (3): 179-86. Google Scholar
[5]
Tôn Thất Minh Đạt. Vietnamese Rehabilitation Assessment Scale for Adults (VnRAs 2.0), 2024. https://yhocphuchoi.com/cac-bieu-mau-luong-gia/sinh-hoat-hang-ngay-tham-gia/vnras-2-0/ [truy cập 6/2025]. Google Scholar
[6]
Mokkink L.B, Terwee C.B, Patrick D.L et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol, 2010, 63 (7): 737-745. Google Scholar
[7]
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ, 2011, 2: 53-5. Google Scholar
[8]
Koo T.K, Li M.Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients. J Chiropr Med, 2016, 15 (2): 155-63. Google Scholar
[9]
Terwee C.B, Bot S.D, de Boer M.R et al. Quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol, 2007, 60 (1): 34-42. Google Scholar
[10]
Nguyễn Thị Hồng Chương, Trần Văn Thành. Đặc điểm lâm sàng và cận lâm sàng bệnh nhân đột quỵ tại Bệnh viện Đa khoa Trung ương Huế. Tạp chí Y học Thực hành, 2020, (9): 45-9. Google Scholar