This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cheng, E M Articles by Vickrey, B G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cheng, E M Articles by Vickrey, B G Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Factors related to agreement between self-reported and conventional Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores

Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

R D Hays

Department of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA, RAND, Santa Monica, California, USA

L W Myers

Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

G W Ellison

Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

M Beckstrand

Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

B G Vickrey

Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA, RAND, Santa Monica, California, USA

Background: Although the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) remains a widely used scale for evaluating impairments in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), EDSS assessments are infeasible in certain situations. A self-administered version of the EDSS would be potentially usefulif it yielded similar results as the conventional physician-based version. Methods: We developed a self-administered patient questionnaire to obtain ratings of neurologic impairments, and developed algorithms to estimate EDSS scores. We mailed the questionnaires to all new consecutive patients scheduled to be seen at an MS clinic. Questionnaires were completed prior to the visit, and traditional EDSS ratings were made by one of two neurologists at the visit. One hundred and forty-six pairs of patient questionnaires and physician EDSS assessments were obtained. Results: Kappa values for agreement between the physician's EDSS scores and the questionnaire-derived scores were 0.13 (for exact agreement), 0.39 (+0.5 EDSS steps), and 0.56 (+1.0 EDSS steps). A scatterplot showed that agreement was best at EDSS scores 53.0 and 45.0. Better agreement was obtained when patients had a higher level of education, and when the physician was more certain of the diagnosis of MS. Conclusions: While the self-assessed EDSS scores do not agree highly enough to take the place of conventional EDSS scores, they may be sufficient for MS trial screening or for assessing outcomes across broad categories of disability.

Key Words: multiple sclerosis • health services research • self-assessment • Kurtzke EDSS

Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 7, No. 6, 405-410 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/135245850100700610


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J Greenhalgh, H Ford, A F Long, and K Hurst The MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, April 1, 2004; 75(4): 577 - 582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]