|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales
A Riazi
Neurological Outcome Measures Unit, Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
J C Hobart
Neurological Outcome Measures Unit, Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3BG, UK, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Derriford Hospital, Devon, PL8 8DH, UK, Jeremy.Hobart{at}phnt.swest.nhs.uk
D L Lamping
Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
R Fitzpatrick
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
A J Thompson
Neurological Outcome Measures Unit, Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
The selection of measures of quality of life used in clinical trials of multiple sclerosis (MS) should be evidence-based. Head-to -head comparison of measures facilitates the selection of measures. The aim of the study was to compare the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions in three measures of quality of life to aid choice of the most appropriate scale for use in clinical trials of MS. O ne hundred and twenty-one people with MS (rehabilitation =57; steroids =64) completed a selection of health measures before and after treatment. The psychometric properties of three measures of physical function (MSIS-29 physical, SF-36 physical functioning, FA MS mobility) and three measures of psychological function (MSIS-29 psychological, SF-36 mental health, FA MS emotional well-being) were compared by examining data quality, scaling assumptions, acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Physical (0.63- 0.71) and psychological (0.70-0.75) scales were substantially correlated indicating they measure related constructs. The MSIS-29 physical and psychological scales satisfied all criteria for internal consistency reliability (physical =0.91; psychological =0.89) and validity. The SF-36 physical scale had a notable floor effect (20%). The FA MS mobility scale had lower reliability (a=0.78) compared to other measures. The MSIS-29 physical (effect size=0.91) and psychological (effect size =0.62) scales were the most responsive. In these three samples, the MSIS-29 had better measurement properties for combined physical and psychological health than the SF-36 and the FA MS.
Key Words: health outcomes measurement • multiple sclerosis • Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) • psychometric methods
Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 9, No. 4,
411-419 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/1352458503ms929oa
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A Giordano, E Pucci, P Naldi, L Mendozzi, C Milanese, F Tronci, M Leone, N Mascoli, L La Mantia, G Giuliani, et al.
Responsiveness of patient reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: the REMS study
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
September 1, 2009;
80(9):
1023 - 1028.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Gray, G. McDonnell, and S. Hawkins
Tried and tested: the psychometric properties of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) in a population-based study
Multiple Sclerosis,
January 1, 2009;
15(1):
75 - 80.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Simeoni, P. Auquier, O. Fernandez, P. Flachenecker, S. Stecchi, C. Constantinescu, E. Idiman, A. Boyko, A. Beiske, T. Vollmer, et al.
Validation of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire
Multiple Sclerosis,
March 1, 2008;
14(2):
219 - 230.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Costelloe, K. O'Rourke, H. Kearney, C. McGuigan, L. Gribbin, M. Duggan, L. Daly, N. Tubridy, and M. Hutchinson
The patient knows best: significant change in the physical component of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29 physical)
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
August 1, 2007;
78(8):
841 - 844.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P Ayatollahi, S Nafissi, M R Eshraghian, H Kaviani, and A Tarazi
Impact of depression and disability on quality of life in Iranian patients with multiple sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis,
March 1, 2007;
13(2):
275 - 277.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. de Groot, H. Beckerman, B. M. J. Uitdehaag, H. C. W. de Vet, G. J. Lankhorst, C. H. Polman, and L. M. Bouter
The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis
Brain,
October 1, 2006;
129(10):
2648 - 2659.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Forbes, A. While, L. Mathes, and P. Griffiths
Health problems and health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis
Clinical Rehabilitation,
January 1, 2006;
20(1):
67 - 78.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Nicholl, J C Hobart, A F. Cramp, and A S Lowe-Strong
Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis: not as simple as it sounds
Multiple Sclerosis,
December 1, 2005;
11(6):
708 - 712.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F A H van der Linden, J J Kragt, M Klein, H M van der Ploeg, C H Polman, and B M J Uitdehaag
Psychometric evaluation of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) for proxy use
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
December 1, 2005;
76(12):
1677 - 1681.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J C Hobart, A Riazi, D L Lamping, R Fitzpatrick, and A J Thompson
How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
November 1, 2005;
76(11):
1539 - 1543.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Diamond and J Jankovic
The effect of deep brain stimulation on quality of life in movement disorders
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
September 1, 2005;
76(9):
1188 - 1193.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D A Gruenewald, I J Higginson, B Vivat, P Edmonds, and R E Burman
Quality of life measures for the palliative care of people severely affected by multiple sclerosis: a systematic review
Multiple Sclerosis,
December 1, 2004;
10(6):
690 - 725.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
