There is considerable evidence that persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) who experience cognitive impairments (CIs) are at risk of having significant limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs). However, ADL assessment often consists of proxies or self-report of ADLs. This study examined whether the performance of instrumental ADLs (I-ADL) is impaired in PwMS with and without CI.
Methods:
Participants included 72 PwMS and 48 matched healthy controls (HCs). PwMS were divided into MS-CI (n = 25) and MS-not-impaired (n = 47) groups based on the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) scores. All participants performed the Actual RealityTM (AR) test, measuring I-ADL using authentic websites.
Results:
The MS-CI performed significantly worse on AR compared with HC and MS-not-impaired. In addition, the MS-not-impaired performed significantly worse than HC on AR. AR differentiates well between PwMS with and without CI.
Conclusions:
While CI in MS results in significant limitations in the performance of I-ADL, PwMS who do not show evidence of CI can have limitations in I-ADL. AR assessment is a valid and reliable tool sensitive to CI. It should be used in addition to traditional cognitive assessments to detect early functional deterioration through the course of MS.
Macías IslasMÁCiampiE. Assessment and impact of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: An overview. Biomedicines2019; 7(1): 22.
2.
WeberEGoveroverYDeLucaJ. Beyond cognitive dysfunction: Relevance of ecological validity of neuropsychological tests in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2019; 25(10): 1412–1419.
3.
HancockLMHermannBSchoonheimMM, et al. Comparing diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord2022; 58: 103479.
4.
GoveroverYChiaravallotiNGaudino-GoeringE, et al. The relationship among performance of instrumental activities of daily living, self-report of quality of life, and self-awareness of functional status in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol2009; 54(1): 60–68.
5.
DeLucaJChiaravallotiNDSandroffBM. Treatment and management of cognitive dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol2020; 16(6): 319–332.
6.
YaelGNancyCJohnD. Money management in multiple sclerosis: The role of cognitive, motor, and affective factors. Front Neurol2019; 10: 1128.
7.
GoveroverYDeLucaJ. Assessing everyday life functional activity using actual reality in persons with MS. Rehabil Psychol2018; 63(2): 276–285.
8.
PerneczkyRPohlCSorgC, et al. Complex activities of daily living in mild cognitive impairment: Conceptual and diagnostic issues. Age Ageing2006; 35(3): 240–245.
9.
GoveroverYO’BrienARMooreNB, et al. Actual reality: A new approach to functional assessment in persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2010; 91(2): 252–260.
10.
GoveroverYStroberLChiaravallotiN, et al. Factors that moderate activity limitation and participation restriction in people with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther2015; 69(2): 6902260020p1–6902260020p9.
11.
JansaJFerdinandSMiloM, et al. Performance of activities of daily living in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord2022; 57: 103342.
12.
KurtzkeJF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology1983; 33(11): 1444–1452.
13.
ThompsonAJBanwellBLBarkhofF, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. The Lancet Neurology2018; 17(2): 162–173.
14.
ArtemiadisABakirtzisCChatzittofisA, et al. Brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS) cut-off scores for detecting cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord2021; 49: 102751.
15.
GorettiBNiccolaiCHakikiB, et al. The brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS): Normative values with gender, age and education corrections in the Italian population. BMC Neurol2014; 14(1): 171.
16.
SmithA. Symbol digit modalities test. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1973.
17.
DelisDKaplanEKramerJ, et al. California verbal learning test-II. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 2000.
18.
BenedictRHBSchretlenDGroningerL, et al. Revision of the brief visuospatial memory test: Studies of normal performance, reliability, and validity. Psychol Assessment1996; 8(2): 145.
19.
ErlangerDMKaushikTCarusoLS, et al. Reliability of a cognitive endpoint for use in a multiple sclerosis pharmaceutical trial. J Neurol Sci2014; 340(1): 123–129.
20.
RuffRMLightRHQuayhagenM. Selective reminding tests: A normative study of verbal learning in adults. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol1989; 11(4): 539–550.
21.
GronwallDM. Paced auditory serial-addition task: A measure of recovery from concussion. Percept Mot Skills1977; 44(2): 367–373.
22.
VickreyBGHaysRDHarooniR, et al. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res1995; 4(3): 187–206.
23.
ChangCHNyenhuisDLCellaD, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chicago Multiscale Depression Inventory in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler2003; 9(2): 160–170.
24.
NyenhuisDLLuchettaTYamamotoC, et al. The development, standardization, and initial validation of the Chicago Multiscale Depression Inventory. J Pers Assess1998; 70(2): 386–401.
25.
SpeilbergerCDGorsuchRLLusheneR, et al. Manual for the Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983.
26.
FeysPLamersIFrancisG, et al. The Nine-Hole Peg Test as a manual dexterity performance measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2017; 23(5): 711–720.
27.
SolaroCCattaneoDBrichettoG, et al. Clinical correlates of 9-Hole Peg Test in a large population of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord2019; 30: 1–8.
28.
GoldmanMDMotlRWScagnelliJ, et al. Clinically meaningful performance benchmarks in MS. Neurology2013; 81(21): 1856–1863.
29.
FischerJSRudickRACutterGR, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): An integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler1999; 5(4): 244–250.
30.
MånssonELexellJ. Performance of activities of daily living in multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil2004; 26(10): 576–585.
31.
RodakowskiJSkidmoreERReynoldsCFIII, et al. Can performance on daily activities discriminate between older adults with normal cognitive function and those with mild cognitive impairment?J Am Geriatr Soc2014; 62(7): 1347–1352.
32.
MlinacMEFengMC. Assessment of activities of daily living, self-care, and independence. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2016; 31(6): 506–516.
33.
McGrathRVincentBMHackneyKJ, et al. Weakness and cognitive impairment are independently and jointly associated with functional decline in aging Americans. Aging Clin Exp Res2020; 32(9): 1723–1730.
34.
JuttenRJDicksEVermaatL, et al. Impairment in complex activities of daily living is related to neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease–specific regions. Neurobiol Aging2019; 75: 109–116.
35.
SalterAFoxRJTyryT, et al. New applications for independent activities of daily living in measuring disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2021; 27(1): 97–106.
36.
Eilam-StockTBestPShermanK, et al. An interview-based assessment of the experience of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: The cognitive assessment interview (CAI). Front Neurol2021; 12: 637895.
37.
GijbelsDAldersGVan HoofE, et al. Predicting habitual walking performance in multiple sclerosis: Relevance of capacity and self-report measures. Mult Scler2010; 16(5): 618–626.
