Background: Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS) is designed to assess disability (i.e. activity limitations) in patients with multiple sclerosis. It contains 12 functional domains, each indicating a level of disability. Four domain scores and a total score can be calculated.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the structural validity of the GNDS in a Dutch population who were definitely diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis.
Methods: Data of 974 patients were available. The structural validity of the GNDS was evaluated by confirmatory item factor analysis (CIFA). Two first-order models and two bifactor models were investigated.
Results: The best fitted model was a bifactor model with a general factor underlying all items, and 10 items loading on 3 group factors. Cronbach’s alpha on the general factor (0.78) and on the group factor spinal-plus (0.74) were satisfying. Cronbach’s alpha on the group factors mental (0.56) and bulbar (0.48) were low. Reliability based on CIFA was 0.85.
Conclusion: Results showed a clear factor structure of the GNDS. It justifies the use of the total score of the GNDS. In addition, three sub-scale scores could be used.
SharrackBHughesRA. The Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): a new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler1999; 5: 223–233.
2.
World Health Organization. ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2001.
3.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. 2010. Accessed 18 May 2010.
4.
HoogervorstELEikelenboomMJUitdehaagBMPolmanCH. One year changes in disability in multiple sclerosis: neurological examination compared with patient self report. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2003; 74: 439–442.
5.
PearsonORBusseMEVan DeursenRWWilesCM. Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders. QJM2004; 97: 463–475.
6.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDLAlonsoJStratfordPWKnolDL. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol2010; 63: 737–745.
7.
AraujoCRSimaoLMYbarraMIFariaNVBotelhoCMMoreiraMA. Validation of the Brazilian version of Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale. Arq Neuropsiquiatr2007; 65: 615–618.
8.
FraserCMcGurlJ. Psychometric testing of the Americanized version of the Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale. J Neurosci Nurs2007; 39: 13–19.
9.
BabyakMAGreenSB. Confirmatory factor analysis: an introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers. Psychosom Med2010; 72: 787–797.
10.
ChenFFWestSGSousaKH. A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behav Res2006; 41: 189–225.
11.
BollenKA. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley, 1989.
12.
HuLBentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling1999; 6: 1–55.
13.
McDonaldRP. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999.
14.
RevelleWZinbargRE. Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika2009; 74: 145–154.
15.
GreenSBYangY. Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: an alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika2009; 74: 155–167.
16.
JacksonDLGillaspyJAPurc-StephensonR. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods2009; 14: 6–23.
17.
ComreyALLeeHB. A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.
