Can the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis adapt to changing needs? A psychometric validation in patients with clinically isolated syndrome and early relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2011
Can the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis adapt to changing needs? A psychometric validation in patients with clinically isolated syndrome and early relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
Background: The Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS) is widely used in clinical trial programmes; however, it was developed before the rise in trials targeted at early stage multiple sclerosis (MS) and clinically isolated syndrome (CIS).
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the FAMS within two clinically distinct populations, CIS and early relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS), and discern the appropriateness of the FAMS within these populations.
Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on FAMS data from two clinical trials assessing interferon beta–1b in early RRMS and CIS. The statistical analysis assessed the scale acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the FAMS. Item response theory (IRT) was also conducted on the early RRMS sample in order to assess how well the FAMS discriminated amongst individuals with less severe MS.
Results: Results from both trials demonstrated an improvement in the FAMS psychometric properties with increased baseline disease severity. However, high ceiling effects were evident amongst less severe patients, and there was an overall lack of responsiveness to improvement and poor construct validity. IRT also demonstrated its lack of discrimination/sensitivity in early RRMS.
Conclusions: In trials involving patients with early stage RRMS and CIS, modifications to the FAMS based on a qualitative assessment of its content validity in these populations would be required in order to potentially improve the FAMS psychometric properties and sensitivity.
ScogginsJFPatrickDL. The use of patient-reported outcome instruments in registered clinical trials: evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov. Contemp Clin Trials2009; 30: 289–292.
2.
SolariA. Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes2005; 3: 16.
3.
KurtzkeJF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology1983; 33: 1444–1452.
4.
NortvedtMWRiiseTMyhrKMNylandHI. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: measuring the disease effects more broadly. Neurology1999; 53: 1098–1103.
5.
CellaDFDineenKArnasonBRederAWebsterKAKarabatsosG. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology1996; 47: 129–139.
6.
GiordanoAPucciENaldiPMendozziLMilaneseCTronciF. Responsiveness of patient reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: the REMS study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2009; 80: 1023–1028.
7.
HobartJCRiaziALampingDLFitzpatrickRThompsonAJ. How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS – 29)? A comparison with some other self-report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2005; 76: 1539–1543.
8.
RiaziAHobartJCLampingDLFitzpatrickRThompsonAJ. Evidence based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler2003; 9: 411–419.
9.
European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use: Draft Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of multiple Sclerosis. 2005. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/056198en.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2010.
10.
European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use: Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of multiple Sclerosis. 2006. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/56198en.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2010.
11.
KapposLPolmanCHFreedmanMSEdanGHartungHPMillerDH. Treatment with interferon beta-1b delays conversion to clinically definite and McDonald MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology2006; 67: 1242–1249.
12.
KapposLFreedmanMSPolmanCHEdanGHartungHPMillerD. Effect of early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study. Lancet2007; 370: 389–397.
13.
KapposLFreedmanMSPolmanCHEdanGHartungHPMillerD. Long term effect of early treatment with interferon beta-1b after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 5-year active treatment extension of the phase 3 BENEFIT trial. Lancet Neurol2009; 8: 987–997.
14.
O’ConnorPFilippiMArnasonBComiGCookSGoodinD. Interferon beta 1-b 250mg versus interferon beta 1-b 500mg versus glatiramer acetate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a prospective, randomised multicentre study. Lancet Neurol2009; 8: 889–897.
15.
EdelenMReeveB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation and refinement. Qual Life Res2007; 16: 5–18.
16.
FriesJFBruceBCellaD. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol2005; 23(Suppl. 39): S53–S57.
17.
RuddickRACutterGReingoldS. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: a new clinical outcome measure for multiple sclerosis trials. Mult Scler2002; 8: 359–365.
18.
McHorneyCATarlovAR. Individual patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res1995; 4: 293–307.
19.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology, 1994.
20.
KlineP. The Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000.
21.
StuckiGLiangMHFosselAHKatzJN. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol1995; 48: 1369–1378.
22.
ZouGY. Quantifying responsiveness of quality if life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res2005; 14: 1545–1552.
23.
SamejimaF. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement 1969, No. 17.
24.
KaiserHF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas1960; 20: 141–151.
25.
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Draft Guidance. US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2010.
