Objectives: To develop a patient-completed disease-specific measure of quality of life in multiple sclerosis and to validate the measure in a community-based population of people with multiple sclerosis.
Methods: The items in the scale were selected in focus group sessions of people with multiple sclerosis. The initial scale included 25 items and was tested in subgroups of 150 people from a population register of people with multiple sclerosis in Leeds. Following further developmental phases, a restructured 16-item scale was tested on a random sample of 200 people with multiple sclerosis from the population register, stratified according to disease course. This led to a final eight-item unidimensional scale, the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (LMSQoL) scale.
Results: After initial development a 16-item scale was found to be both reliable and valid. Cronbach' s alpha for the 16-item scale was 0.86. The test–retest correlation was 0.74, using a two-week retest interval. However, convergent validity with the General Well Being Index was 0.67 and with the SF-36 Physical Function Scale was 0.68. This suggested that the scale straddled these two concepts and was confirmed by fit of the data to the Rasch measurement model. This revealed the potential for a reduced eight-item version of the scale. The eight-item scale had a closer association to well-being (0.83) than to physical function (0.39), had good internal consistency (0.79) and test–retest reliability (0.85). There were virtually no floor or ceiling effects for the scale.
Conclusions: The study presents a disease-specific measure of quality of life in multiple sclerosis, the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (LMSQoL) scale. The instrument is brief, easy to use and practical to administer in clinic or as a postal questionnaire. It measures a construct related to well-being, and provides an important adjunct to the measurement of outcome in multiple sclerosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale. Neurology1983; 33: 1444–1452.
2.
Sharrack B, Hughes RAC, Soudain S. Guy' s Neurological Disability Scale. J Neurol1996; 243(suppl 2): 32-32.
3.
Shinar D, Gross CR, Mohr JP et al. Interobserver variability in the assessment of neurologic history and examination in the Stroke Data Bank. Arch Neurol1985; 42: 557–565.
4.
Amato MP, Fratiglioni L, Groppi C, Siracusa G, Amaducci L. Interrater reliability in assessing functional systems and disability on the Kurtzke scale in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol1988; 45: 746–748.
5.
Whitaker IN, McFarland HF, Rudge P, Reingold SC. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis. Multiple Sclerosis1995; 1: 37–47.
6.
World Health Organization. The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
7.
Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH. Measuring health status in arthritis: the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum1980; 23: 146–152.
8.
Bergner M. Health status as a measure of health promotion and disease prevention: unresolved issues and the agenda for the 1990' s. In: Proceedings of the 1989 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics. Rockville, MD, National Centre for Health Statistics, 1989.
9.
Fitzpatrick R. The measurement of health status and quality of life in rheumatological disorders. Bailliere' s Clin Rheumatol1993; 7: 297–317.
10.
Wollin J. Assessing disability status: the reliability of the Multiple Sclerosis Disability Profile. Aust Occup Ther J1997; 44: 158–166.
11.
Tennant A, Geddes JLM, Fear J, Hilman M, Chamberlain MA. Outcome following stroke. Disabil Rehabil1997; 19: 278–284.
12.
Lerner M. Conceptualisation of health and wellbeing. Health Services Res1973; 8: 6–12.
13.
Schumaker S, Berzon R eds. The International assessment of health related quality of life. Oxford: Rapid Communications, 1995.
14.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item shortform health survey (SF-36): I Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care1992; 30: 473–483.
15.
Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, Myers LW, Ellison GW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res1995; 4: 187–206.
16.
Cella DF, Dineen K, Arnason MD et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology1996; 47: 129–139.
17.
Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull1984; 95: 542–575.
18.
Van Riel PLCM, Van Lankveld WGJM. Quality of life 3. Pharmacy World Sci1993; 15: 93–97.
19.
Tennant A. Quality of life: a measure too far?Ann Rheum Dis1995; 54: 439–440.
20.
Fuhrer MJ, Rintala DH, Hart KA, Clearman R, Young ME. Relationship of life satisfaction to impairment, disability and handicap among persons with spinal cord injury living in the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: 552–557.
21.
Tennant A, McKenna SP. Conceptualizing and defining outcome. Br J Rheumatol1995; 34: 899–900.
22.
Pearlman RA, Uhlman R. Quality of life in chronic diseases: perceptions of elderly patients. J Gerontol1988; 43: 25–30.
23.
Whalley D, McKenna SP, de Jong Z, van der Heijde D. Quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol1997; 36(8): 884–888.
24.
Ford HL, Gerry E, Airey CM, Vail A, Johnson MH, Williams DRR. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the Leeds Health Authority. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1998; 64(5): 605–610.
25.
Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. Neurology1996; 46: 907–911.
26.
Norusis MJ. SPSS for Windows. Advanced statistics. Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 1993.
27.
Wright BD, Linacre JM. A user' s guide to BIGSTEPS. Chicago: Messa Press, 1992.
28.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika1951; 16: 297–334.
29.
Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol1993; 78: 98–104.
30.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
31.
Dupuy. The psychological general well-being index. In: Wegner NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD et al. eds. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York: Le Jacq, 1984.
32.
Hunt SM, McKenna S. A British Adaptation of the General Well-being Index: a new tool for clinical research. Br J Med Economics1992; 2: 49–60.
33.
Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
34.
Avlund K, Kreiner S, Schultz-Larsen K. Construct validation and the Rasch model: functional ability of healthy elderly people. Scand J Soc Med1993, 21: 233–246.
35.
Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Chicago: Messa Press, 1979.
36.
Prieto L, Alonso J, Lamarca R, Wright BD. Rasch measurement for reducing the Items of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Outcome Meas1998; 2: 285–301.
37.
Smith RM, Schumacker RE, Bush MJ. Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. J Outcome Meas1998; 2: 66–78.
38.
Likert RA. A technique for the development of attitude scales. Educ Psychol Meas1952; 12: 313–315.
39.
Murawski MM, Miederhoff PA. On the generalizability of statistical expressions of health related quality of life instrument responsiveness: a data synthesis. Qual Life Res1998; 7: 11–22.
40.
Hunt SM, McKenna SP. The QLDS: A scale for the measurement of quality of life in depression. Health Policy1992; 22: 307–319.
41.
Stensman R. Severely mobility disabled people assess the quality of their lives. Scand J Rehabil Med1994; 17: 87–99.
42.
Rutta DA, Garratt Am, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: the patient-generated index. Med Care1994; 32: 1109–1126.
