These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis.
    Author: Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G.
    Journal: Brain; 1999 Jan; 122 ( Pt 1)():141-59. PubMed ID: 10050902.
    Abstract:
    OullII;l y Many clinical rating scales have been proposed to assess the impact of multiple sclerosis on patients, but only few have been evaluated formally for reliability, validity and responsiveness. We assessed the psychometric properties of five commonly used scales in multiple sclerosis, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the Scripps Neurological Rating Scale (SNRS), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Ambulation Index (AI) and the Cambridge Multiple Sclerosis Basic Score (CAMBS). The score frequency distributions of all five scales were either bimodal (EDSS and AI) or severely skewed (SNRS, FIM and CAMBS). The reliability of each scale depended on the definition of 'agreement'. Inter-and intra-rater reliabilities were high when 'agreement' was considered to exist despite a difference of up to 1.0 EDSS point (two 0.5 steps), 13 SNRS points, 9 FIM points, 1 AI point and 1 point on the various CAMBS domains. The FIM, AI, and the relapse and progression domains of the CAMBS were sensitive to clinical change, but the EDSS and the SNRS were unresponsive. The validity of these scales as impairment (SNRS and EDSS) and disability (EDSS, FIM, AI and the disability domain of the CAMBS) measures was established. All scales correlated closely with other measures of handicap and quality of life. None of these scales satisfied the psychometric requirements of outcome measures completely, but each had some desirable properties. The SNRS and the EDSS were reliable and valid measures of impairment and disability, but they were unresponsive. The FIM was a reliable, valid and responsive measure of disability, but it is cumbersome to administer and has a limited content validity. The AI was a reliable and valid ambulation-related disability scale, but it was weakly responsive. The CAMBS was a reliable (all four domains) and responsive (relapse and progression domains) outcome measure, but had a limited validity (handicap domain). These psychometric properties should be considered when designing further clinical trials in multiple sclerosis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]