BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study compared the ability of 2 stroke impairment 
scales, Orpington Prognostic Scale and National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
Stroke Scale, to predict disability as measured by the Barthel activities of 
daily living (ADL) Index and higher level of self-reported physical functioning 
as measured by the SF-36 physical functioning index (PFI) at 1, 3, and 6 months 
after stroke.
METHODS: The participants in this ongoing study are 184 individuals who 
sustained an eligible stroke and were recruited for the Kansas City Stroke 
Study. All patients were prospectively evaluated using standardized assessments 
at enrollment (within 14 days of stroke onset) and followed at 1, 3, and 6 
months after stroke. Coefficient of determination (R2) was used to assess the 
ability of the 2 stroke scales to prognosticate outcomes.
RESULTS: Means and SDs of the Orpington Prognostic Scale and NIH Stroke Scale 
measured at baseline were 3.6+/-1.31 and 5.5+/-4.58, respectively. The 
Spearman's rank correlation between the 2 baseline measures was 0.83 (P=0.0001). 
The Orpington Prognostic Scale and the NIH Stroke Scale explained well the 
variance in Barthel ADL Index (P<0.001). However, the Orpington Prognostic Scale 
explained more variance than did the NIH Stroke Scale. Similarly, the Orpington 
Prognostic Score explained more variance in higher level of physical function 
than did the NIH Stroke Scale. The amount of variance in Barthel ADL Index and 
SF-36 PFI, which were explained by both stroke severity measures, decreased over 
time.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that in a sample of mostly mild and 
moderate strokes, the Orpington Prognostic Scale compared with the NIH Stroke 
Scale is simpler to use and is a slightly better predictor of ADL and higher 
levels of physical function.