To translate and adapt the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-29 into Arabic (MSQOL-29-Ar) and assess its psychometric properties in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).
Methods
Generally, 101 Arabic-speaking adults with MS aged 21 to 60 were recruited. Construct validity was tested by correlating MSQOL-29-Ar with the Arabic Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS-AR) and Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life (MusiQOL). Known-group validity was assessed by correlating the scale's Physical Health Composite (PHC) and Mental Health Composite (MHC) scores with the demographic and clinical data. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC95), limit of agreement (LOA), responsiveness, and floor/ceiling effects were also investigated.
Results
PHC and MHC scores correlated strongly with FAMS-ARA (r = 0.76 and 0.70, respectively).PHC scores were associated with age, employment, and MS chronicity, while MHC scores correlated with the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Internal consistency was acceptable (PHC α = 0.80; MHC α = 0.90), with excellent test-retest reliability (PHC r = 0.76; MHC r = 0.90). SEM (1.4–1.6) and MDC95 (4.3–3) were low. Responsiveness analysis indicated moderate accuracy (AUC = 0.70–0.75) with on-floor/ceiling effects.
Conclusion
MSQOL-29-Ar is valid and reliable for assessing HQOL in people with MS, making it suitable for clinical and rehabilitation settings.
AbmaI. L.RoversM.van der WeesP. J. (2016). Appraising convergent validity of patient-reported outcome measures in systematic reviews: Constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes. BMC Research Notes, 9(19), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1837-x
2.
AcquadroC.LafortuneL.MearI. (2003). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Translation in French Canadian of the MSQoL-54. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 24(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-70
3.
AlJumahM.BunyanR.Al OtaibiH.Al TowaijriG.KarimA.Al MalikY.KalakatawiM.AlrajehS.Al MejallyM.AlgahtaniH.AlmubarakA.CuplerE.AlawiS.QureshiS.NahrirS.AlmalkiA.AlhazzaniA.AlthubaitiI.AlzahraniN.MohamednourE. … Al-JedaiA. (2020). Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Saudi Arabia, a descriptive study. BMC Neurology, 20(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-1629-3
BakerG.NairK. P. S.BasterK.RosatoR.SolariA. (2019). Reliability and acceptability of the multiple sclerosis quality of life-29 questionnaire in an English-speaking cohort. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 25(11), 1539–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458518776583
6.
BeatonD. E.BombardierC.GuilleminF.FerrazM. B. (1976). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
7.
BlandJ. M.AltmanD. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
8.
BonettD. G. (2002). Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Statistics in Medicine, 21(9), 1331–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1108
9.
BrolaW.SobolewskiP.FudalaM.FlagaS.JantarskiK. (2017). Multiple sclerosis: Patient-reported quality of life in the Świętokrzyskie region. Medical Studies/Studia Medyczne, 33(3), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.5114/ms.2017.70345
10.
CaticT.CuligJ.SuljicE.MasicA.GojakR. (2017). Validation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQoL-54 in Bosnia and Herzegovina multiple sclerosis patients sample. Medical Archives, 71(2), 103. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2017.71.103-106
11.
CellaD. F.DineenK.ArnasonB.RederA.WebsterK. A.KarabatsosG.ChangC.LloydS.StewartJ.StefoskiD. (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology, 47(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.47.1.129
12.
ColbeckM. (2018). Sensory processing, cognitive fatigue, and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Traitement de l’information sensorielle, fatigue cognitive et qualité de vie des personnes atteintes de sclérose en plaques. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 85(2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417417727298
13.
DehghaniA. (2021). Development and validation of the disease-specific problems questionnaire for patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurology, 21(1), 415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02442-y
14.
De VetH. C.TerweeC. B.MokkinkL. B.KnolD. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
15.
DorstynD. S.RobertsR. M.MurphyG.HaubR. (2019). Employment and multiple sclerosis: A meta-analytic review of psychological correlates. Journal of Health Psychology, 24(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317691587
16.
El Alaoui TaoussiK.BenomarA.AbouqalR.YahyaouiM. (2012). Quality of life and multiple sclerosis: Arabic language translation and transcultural adaptation of “MSQOL-54”. Revue Neurologique, 168(5), 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2011.10.011
17.
EstiasariR.MelaniS.KusumawardhaniA. A. A. A.PangeranD.FajrinaY.MaharaniK.ImranD. (2019). Validation of the Indonesian version of the multiple sclerosis quality of life-54 (MSQOL-54 INA) questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1190-1.
18.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (2013). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
19.
FordH.GerryE.TennantA.WhalleyD.HaighR.JohnsonM. (2001). Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921501673658108
20.
FreemanJ.HobartJ.ThompsonA. (2001). Does adding MS-specific items to a generic measure (the SF-36) improve measurement?Neurology, 57(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.57.1.68
21.
FritzJ. M.IrrgangJ. J. (2001). A comparison of a modified oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Physical Therapy, 81(2), 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/81.2.776
22.
FüvesiJ.BencsikK.BenedekK.MátyásK.MészárosE.RajdaC.LosoncziE.Fricska-NagyZ.VécseiL. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument'in Hungarian. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 14(3), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458507082724
23.
GhaemH.HaghighiA. B.JafariP.NiksereshtA. (2007). Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the multiple sclerosis quality of life questionnaire. Neurology India, 55(4), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.33316
24.
Gil-GonzálezI.Martín-RodríguezA.ConradR.Pérez-San-GregorioM. Á. (2020). Quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. BMJ open, 10(11), e041249. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041249
25.
GiordanoA.PucciE.NaldiP.MendozziL.MilaneseC.TronciF.LeoneM.MascoliN.La MantiaL.GiulianiG. (2009). Responsiveness of patient-reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: The REMS study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 80(9), 1023–1028. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.171181
26.
GuptaS.GorenA.PhillipsA. L.DangondF.StewartM. (2014). Self-reported severity among patients with multiple sclerosis in the US and its association with health outcomes. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 3(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2013.06.002
27.
HassanzadehM.BanitabaS. M.AziziS. (2023). Validation of Persian multiple sclerosis quality of life-29 (P-MSQOL-29) questionnaire. Acta Neurologica Belgica, 123(6), 2201–2211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-023-02222-0
28.
HuangW. J.ChenW. W.ZhangX. (2017). Multiple sclerosis: Pathology, diagnosis, and treatments. Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 13(6), 3163–3166. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4410
29.
IdimanE.UzunelF.OzakbasS.YozbatiranN.OguzM.CalliogluB.GokceN.BaharZ. (2006). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of multiple sclerosis quality of life questionnaire (MSQOL-54) in a turkish multiple sclerosis sample. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 240(1-2), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2005.09.009
30.
KamperS. J.MaherC. G.MackayG. (2009). Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17(3), 163–170. https://doi: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163
31.
KaratepeA. G.KayaT.GünaydnR.DemirhanA.CeP.GedizliogluM. (2011). Quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis: The impact of depression, fatigue, and disability. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 34(4), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0b013e32834ad479
32.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
33.
KoelmelE.HughesA. J.AlschulerK. N.EhdeD. M. (2017). Resilience mediates the longitudinal relationships between social support and mental health outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 98(6), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.09.127
34.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline for selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
35.
Labiano-FontcubertaA.MitchellA. J.Moreno-GarcíaS.Puertas-MartínV.Benito-LeónJ. (2015). Impact of anger on the health-related quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 21(5), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458514549399
36.
LearmonthY. C.HubbardE. A.McAuleyE.MotlR. W. (2014). Psychometric properties of quality of life and health-related quality of life assessments in people with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care, and Rehabilitation, 23(7), 2015–2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0639-2
37.
LexellJ. E.DownhamD. Y. (2005). How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(9), 719–723. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000176452.17771.20
38.
LynnM. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386. https:\\doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
39.
MitchellA. J.Benito-LeónJ.GonzálezJ.-M. M.Rivera-NavarroJ. (2005). Quality of life and its assessment in multiple sclerosis: Integrating physical and psychological components of wellbeing. The Lancet Neurology, 4(9), 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70166-6
40.
NaumannV. J.ByrneG. J. (2004). WHOQOL-BREF as a measure of quality of life in older patients with depression. International Psychogeriatrics, 16(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610204000109
41.
PekmezovicT.Kisic TepavcevicD.KosticJ.DrulovicJ. (2007). Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQOL-54 in serbian multiple sclerosis patients sample. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care, and Rehabilitation, 16(8), 1383–1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9234-0
42.
PolitD. F.BeckC. T.OwenS. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
43.
RezapourA.Almasian KiaA.GoodarziS.HasoumiM.Nouraei MotlaghS.VahediS. (2017). The impact of disease characteristics on multiple sclerosis patients’ quality of life. Epidemiology and Health, 19(39), e2017008. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2017008
44.
RintalaA.HäkkinenA.PaltamaaJ. (2016). Ten-year follow-up of health-related quality of life among ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis at baseline. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care, and Rehabilitation, 25(12), 3119–3127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1347-x.
45.
RosatoR.TestaS.BertolottoA.ConfalonieriP.PattiF.LugaresiA.GrassoM. G.ToscanoA.GiordanoA.SolariA. (2016). Development of a short version of MSQOL-54 using factor analysis and item response theory. PLoS One, 11(4), e0153466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153466
46.
SimpsonR.MairF. S.MercerS. W. (2017). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for people with multiple sclerosis—a feasibility randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurology, 17(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-017-0880-8.
47.
SoaresR.FermeD.SchestatskyP.FinkelsztejnA.VicenziJ.PiconP. D. (2017). Translation of the multiple sclerosis quality of life-54: Brazilian version. Journal of Multiple Sclerosis. Foster City, 4(1), 5.
48.
SolariA.FilippiniG.MendozziL.GhezziA.CifaniS.BarbieriE.BaldiniS.SalmaggiA.La MantiaL.FarinottiM. (1999). Validation of Italian multiple sclerosis quality of life 54 questionnaire. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 67(2), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.67.2.158
49.
SternB.FabjanT. H.Rener-SitarK.Zaletel-KrageljL. (2017). Validation of the slovenian version of multiple sclerosis quality of life (MSQOL-54) instrument. Slovenian Journal of Public Health, 56(4), 260. https://doi.org/10.1515/sjph-2017-0035
50.
SternB. Z.StroberL.DeLucaJ.GoveroverY. (2018). Subjective well-being differs with age in multiple sclerosis: A brief report. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(3), 474. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000220
51.
TepavcevicD. K.PekmezovicT.StojsavljevicN.KosticJ.BasuroskiI. D.MesarosS.DrulovicJ. (2014). Change in quality of life and predictors of change among patients with multiple sclerosis: A prospective cohort study. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care, and Rehabilitation, 23(3), 1027–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0535-1
52.
TerweeC. B.BotS. D.de BoerM. R.Van der WindtD. A.KnolD. L.DekkerJ.BouterL. M.de VetH. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for the measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
53.
ThompsonA. J.BanwellB. L.BarkhofF.CarrollW. M.CoetzeeT.ComiG.CorrealeJ.FazekasF.FilippiM.FreedmanM. S. (2018). Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. The Lancet Neurology, 17(2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
54.
Van DammeS.De WaegeneerA.DebruyneJ. (2016). Do flexible goal adjustment and acceptance help preserve the quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis?International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23 (3), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-015-9519-6
55.
VickreyB.HaysR.HarooniR.MyersL.EllisonG. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02260859
56.
WaltonC.KingR.RechtmanL.KayeW.LerayE.MarrieR. A.RobertsonN.La RoccaN.UitdehaagB.van Der MeiI. (2020). Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis worldwide: Insights from the atlas of MS. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 26(14), 1816–1821. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520970841
57.
YoungC. A.RogD. J.SharrackB.TanasescuR.KalraS.ChhetriS. K.WildeL.MillsR. J.TennantA. (2024). Physical and psychological aspects of multiple sclerosis: Revisiting the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29). Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 30(13), 1630–1641. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585241288393
ZhangW.BeckerH.StuifbergenA. K.BrownA. (2017). Predicting health promotion and quality of life with symptom clusters and social supports among older adults with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 43(10), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20170406-04
60.
ZipoliV.GorettiB.HakikiB.SiracusaG.SorbiS.PortaccioE.AmatoM. P. (2010). Cognitive impairment predicts conversion to multiple sclerosis in clinically isolated syndromes. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 16(1), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458509350311
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
