Objective: To develop a valid and reliable scale of the Guttman type for the assessment of mobility disability in multiple sclerosis (MS).
Subjects: Sixty-eight subjects with a definite diagnosis of MS participated. They were living in the community and attending as outpatients at a MS unit at a District General Hospital. Thirty had the primary progressive pattern of disease, and 38 had the relapsing–remitting pattern.
Methods: Formal assessments used for neurological disability were inspected, and 14 test items of gross motor function were extracted and ordered according to criteria. These were that tests required trunk control and did not require isolated movement at a single limb or body segment, that actions progressed from lying, to sitting, to standing and walking tasks, proceeding from broader to narrower bases of support. All subjects carried out all test items which were scored as ‘pass’ or ‘fail'.
Analysis: Data were tested for internal consistency, reliability, inter-item correlation, reproducibility and scalability. On the basis of the results, the items were reordered in rank, and reduced to 11 tests. The 11-item scale was reanalysed.
Results: Results showed that the scale had an internal consistency of 0.88 (α coefficient) and a coefficient of reproducibility (CR) of 0.95 and above for both MS subject groups. The coefficient of scalability (CS) for items was 0.78 for primary progressive subjects and 0.74 for the relapsing–remitting group. Reliability ranged from moderate (kappa = 0.49) for one item, to perfect for six items.
Conclusion: The scale was demonstrated to be a hierarchical scale of the Guttman type exhibiting homogeneity and good reliability. The high CR indicated that scores may be summed, and the very acceptable levels of CS indicated that the cumulative scores are meaningful within the defined concept of hierarchy used in this study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WHO (World Health Organization). The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
2.
Thompson AJ, Kermode AG, MacManus DG et al. Patterns of disease activity in multiple sclerosis: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study. BMJ1990; 300: 631–634.
3.
Kurtzke JF. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis. An expanded disability scale (EDSS). Neurology1983; 33: 1444–1452.
4.
Willoughby EW, Paty DW. Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: a critique. Neurology1988; 38: 1793–1789.
5.
Scheinberg LC, Raymond CA. Quantitative techniques in the assessment of multiple sclerosis: the problems and current solutions. In: Munsat TL ed. Quantification of neurologic deficit. Boston: Butterworths, 1989; 155–162.
6.
Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
7.
De Souza LH. Multiple sclerosis: approaches to management. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990.
8.
Ashburn A. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy1982; 68: 109–113.
9.
De Souza LH, Ashburn A. Assessment of motor function in multiple sclerosis patients. Physiother Res Int1996; 1: 98–111.
10.
Levitt S. Treatment of cerebral palsy and motor delay. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1977.
11.
Bobath B. Abnormal postural reflex activity caused by brain lesions. London: William Heinemann Medical, 1971.
12.
Guttman L. A basis for analyzing test–retest reliability. Psychometrika1945; 10: 255–282.
13.
Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika1951; 16: 297–334.
14.
Guttman L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. Am Sociol Rev1944; 9: 139–150.
15.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
16.
Guttman L. Scaling qualitative data. In: Stouffer SA ed. Measurement and prediction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950.
17.
Menzel H. A new coefficient for scalogram analysis. Public Opin Q1953; 17: 268–280.
18.
Partridge C, Edwards S. Recovery curves as a basis for evaluation. Physiotherapy1988; 74: 141–143.
19.
Lincoln NB, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy1979; 65: 48–51.
20.
Evans CD, Bull CPI, Devonport MJ, et al. Rehabilitation of the brain-damaged survivor. Injury1972; 8: 80–97.
21.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med1975; 7: 13–31.
22.
Tourtellotte WW, Haerer AF, Simpson JF, Kuzma JW, Sikovski J. Quantitative neurological testing I: a battery of tests designed to evaluate in part the neurological function of patients with multiple sclerosis and its use in a therapeutic trial. Ann NY Acad Sci1965; 122: 480–505.
23.
Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985; 65: 175–180.
24.
Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology1967; 17: 427–442.
25.
Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. Guide for the use of the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation. New York: Buffalo General Hospital, 1986.
26.
Lieberman AN. Parkinson's disease: a clinical review. Am J Med Sci1974; 267: 66–80.
27.
Bohannon RW. Correlation of lower limb strengths and other variables with standing performance in stroke patients. Physiother Can1989; 41: 198–202.
28.
Mahoney FI and Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
29.
Benjamin J. The Northwick Park ADL Index. Occup Ther1976; 39: 301–306.
30.
Ebrahim S, Nouri F, Barer D. Measuring disability after stroke. Epidemiol Commun Health1985; 39: 86–89.
31.
Whiting S, Lincoln NB. An ADL assessment for stroke patients. Br J Occup Ther43: 44–46.
32.
Demeurisse G, Demol O, Robaye E. Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia. Eur Neurol1980; 19: 382–389.
