4.7 Article

Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability - The 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12)

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 1, Pages 31-36

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.60.1.31

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop a patient-based measure of walking ability in MS. Methods: Twelve items describing the impact of MS on walking (12-Item MS Walking Scale [MSWS-12]) were generated from 30 patient interviews, expert opinion, and literature review. Preliminary psychometric evaluation (data quality, scaling assumptions, acceptability, reliability, validity) was undertaken in the data generated by 602 people from the MS Society membership database. Further psychometric evaluation (including comprehensive validity assessment, responsiveness, and relative efficiency) was conducted in two hospital-based samples: people with primary progressive MS (PPMS; n = 78) and people with relapses admitted for IV steroid treatment (n = 54). Results: In all samples, missing data were low (less than or equal to3.8%), item test-retest reproducibility was high (greater than or equal to0.78), scaling assumptions were satisfied, and reliability was high (greater than or equal to0.94). Correlations between the MSWS-12 and other scales were consistent with a priori hypotheses. The MSWS-12 (relative efficiency = 1.0) was more responsive than the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis mobility scale (0.72), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical functioning scale (0.33), the Expanded Disability Status Scale (0.03), the 25-ft Timed Walk Test (0.44), and Guy's Neurologic Disability Scale lower limb disability item (0.10). Conclusions: The MSWS-12 satisfies standard criteria as a reliable and valid patient-based measure of the impact of MS on walking. In these samples, the MSWS-12 was more responsive than other walking-based scales.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available