4.6 Article

Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): reliability and validity in hospital based samples

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 73, Issue 6, Pages 701-704

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.73.6.701

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aim: The psychometric properties of rating scales are sample dependent and need evaluations in different samples. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29), a new patient based rating scale for multiple sclerosis (MS) was predominantly developed from a community based sample derived from the MS Society. A number of important patient characteristics of this sample remain unknown. The aim of the study was to evaluate five psychometric properties of the MSIS-29 in three hospital based samples: people admitted for rehabilitation, people admitted for intravenous corticosteroid treatment for MS relapses, and people with primary progressive MS. Methods: People with MS were recruited from the three clinical settings. They completed several health measures. MSIS-29 data were evaluated for data quality, scaling assumptions, acceptability, reliability and validity, and compared with those from a previously reported community based study. Results: A total of 233 people (rehabilitation =53; corticosteroids =76; primary progressive =104) completed questionnaires. In all samples, missing data were low (less than or equal to2.2%), scaling assumptions were satisfied, and reliability was high (greater than or equal to0.91). Correlations between the MSIS-29 and other scales were consistent with a priori hypotheses. Findings were consistent with those from the community samples. Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the MSIS-29 are consistent across three hospital based samples, and similar to those in the community samples. These findings further support its use as an outcome measure in different clinical settings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available