The longitudinal relationship between the patient-reported Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale and the clinician-assessed Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online March, 2008
The longitudinal relationship between the patient-reported Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale and the clinician-assessed Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite
Background To examine the longitudinal relationship between the patient-rated Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) and the doctor-reported Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC).
Methods Two-hundred and four MS patients at baseline and 150 patients one to three years later had MSFC and MSIS-29 assessments. Cross-sectional correlations between these measures and correlations of change in scores were examined. Minimally important change (MIC) in the MSFC was defined at either 0.5 or 0.32 SD from baseline. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated.
Results Validity: The MSIS-29 physical correlated moderately with the total MSFC score and the 25-foot timed walk and 9-hole peg test. Correlations of the MSIS-29 physical with the PASAT, and the MSFC with the MSIS-29 psychological were weak. Responsiveness: When MIC in the MSFC was defined as 0.5, mean MSIS-29 physical change was 11.26 (ES = 0.53). At MSFC change of 0.32, mean MSIS-29 physical change was 10.4 (ES = 0.52). Change in MSFC scores correlated weakly with change in the MSIS-29 scores. Stability: In patients with stable MSFC scores, the mean MSIS-29 physical scores improved minimally over time with negligible ES.
Conclusions Although the MSIS-29 physical demonstrates moderate cross-sectional correlation with the MSFC, the weak correlations of change scores between the two instruments indicate that they measure different aspects of the effects of multiple sclerosis morbidity. Multiple Sclerosis 2008; 14: 255—258. http://msj.sagepub.com
Kurtzke J.Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology1983; 33: 1444—52.
2.
Cutter G., Baier M., Rudick RA et al. Development of a Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain1999 ; 122: 871—82.
3.
Hobart J., Lamping D., Fitzpatrick R., Riazi A., Thompson A.The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient based outcome measure. Brain2001; 124: 962—73.
4.
Hoogervorst E., Zwemmer J., Jelles B., Polman CH, Uitehaag B.Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): relation to established measures of impairment and disability. Mult Scler2004; 10: 569—74.
5.
Fischer JS, Jak AJ, Kniker JE, Rudick RAR.Administration and Scoring Manual for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Measure (MSFC). New York, NY: Demos;1999
6.
Cohen J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic press, 1977.
7.
Hoogervorst E., Kalkers N., Uitdehaag B., Polman CHThe patient's perception of a (reliable) change in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite . Mult Scler2004; 10: 55—60.
8.
Kazis L., Anderson J., Meenan R.Effect sizes for interpretation of changes in health status. Medical Care1989; 27: S178—89.
9.
Hoogervorst E., Kalkers N., Uitdehaag B., Polman CHA study validating changes in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Arch Neurol2002; 59:113—16.
10.
Hoogervorst E., Eikelenboom M., Uitdehaag B., Polman CHOne year changes in disability in multiple sclerosis: neurological examination compared with patient self report. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych2003; 74: 439—42.
