Outcome measures for multiple sclerosis clinical trials: Relative measurement precision of the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite

Multiple Sclerosis

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 41-46

  Hobart, J ^a,b   Kalkers, N ^c   Barkhof, F ^c   Uitdehaag, B ^c   Polman, C ^c   Thompson, A ^b  

^a DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

EDSS; Health measurement; MS functional composite; Psychometrics; Quality of life measurement; Rating scales

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BRAIN VENTRICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EXPANDED DISABILITY STATUS SCALE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; KRUSKAL WALLIS TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FUNCTIONAL COMPOSITE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PARENCHYMA; PREDICTION; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANK SUM TEST; SAMPLE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDENT T TEST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIALS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 0346707272     PISSN: 13524585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/1352458504ms983oa     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444-52.
2. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, Myers LW, Ellison GW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 187-206.
3. LaRocca NG, Ritvo PG, Miller DM, Fischer JS, Andrews H, Paty DW. 'Quality of life' assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: Current status and strategies for improving multiple sclerosis clinical trial design. In Goodkin DE, Rudick R eds. Multiple Sclerosis: Advances in Clinical Trial Design, Treatment and Future Perspectives. London: Springer-Verlag, 1996: 145-60.
4. Cella DF, Dineen K, Arnason B, Reder A, Webster KA, Karabatsos G et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology 1996; 47: 129-39.
5. Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C, Cutter G, Ellison G, Fischer J et al. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 379-82.
6. Sharrack B, Hughes RAC. The Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): A new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 223-33.
7. Pfennings LEMA, Cohen L, Van Der Ploeg HM, Bramsen I, Polman CH, Lankhorst GJ et al. A health-related quality of life questionnaire for multiple sclerosis patients. Acta Neurol Scand 1999; 100: 148-55.
8. Ford HL, Gerry E, Tennant A, Whalley D, Haigh R, Johnson MH. Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 247-58.
9. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson AJ. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124: 962-73.
10. McDowell I, Jenkinson C. Development standards for health measures. J Health Services Res Policy 1996; 1: 238-46.
11. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB et al. Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin Therapeut 1996; 18: 979-92.
12. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 1998; vol. 2, no. 14.
13. Van Der Putten JJMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in rehabilitation: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 66: 480-84.
14. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Creenwood RJ, Thompson AJ. Evidence-based measurement: Which disability scale for neurological rehabilitation? Neurology 2001; 57: 639-44.
15. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, Cookfair DL, Fischer JS, Petkau J et al. Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999; 122: 871-82.
16. Whitaker JN, McFarland HF, Rudge P, Reingold SC. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis trials: A critical analysis. Mult Scler 1995; 1: 37-47.
17. Nunnally JCJ. Introduction to Psychological Measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
18. Fischer JS, Jak AJ, Kniker JE, Rudick RA, Cutter GR. Administration and Scoring Manual for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC). New York: Demos Vermande, 1999.
19. Fischer JS, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Mertz LA, Bolibrush DM, Skaramagas TT et al. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC). Neurology 1999; 52(suppl 2): A548.
20. Fischer JS, Cutter GR, Rudick RA, Reingold SC for the National MS Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC); An integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 244-50.
21. Miller DM, Rudick RA, Cutter G, Baier M, Fischer JS. Clinical significance of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: Relationship to patient-reported quality of life. Arch Neurol 2000; 57: 1319-24.
22. Kalkers NF, De Groot V, Lazeron RHC, Killestein J, Ader HJ, Van Walderveen MAA et al. MS Functional Composite: Relation to disease phenotype and disability strata. Neurology 2000; 54: 1233-39.
23. Kalkers NF, Bergers L, De Groot V, Lazeron RHC, Van Walderveen MAA, Uitdehaag BMJ, et al. Concurrent validity of the MS Functional Composite using MRI as a biological disease marker. Neurology 2001; 56: 215-19.
24. Rudick R, Cutter G, Baier M, Fisher E, Dougherty D, Weinstock-Guttman B et al. Use of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite to predict disability in relapsing MS. Neurology 2001; 56: 1324-30.
25. Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.
26. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JFR. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 1992; 30: M5253-65.
27. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247-63.
28. Kenny D, Judd C. Consequences of violating the independence assumptions in analysis of variance. Psychol Bull 1986; 99: 422-31.
29. Pearson ES. The analysis of variance in cases of non-normal variation. Biometrika 1931; 23: 114-33.
30. Boneau CA. The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the t test. Psychol Bull 1960; 57: 49-64.
31. Havlicek LL, Peterson NL. Effect of the violation of assumptions upon significance levels of the Pearson r. Psychol Bull 1977; 84: 373-77.
32. Havlicek LL, Peterson NL. Robustness of the t test: A guide for researchers on effect of violations of assumptions. Psychol Reports 1974; 34: 1095-114.
33. Havlicek LL, Peterson NL. Robustness of the Pearson correlation against violations of assumptions. Percept Motor Skills 1976; 43: 1319-34.
34. Johnson JW, Den Heyer K. On the enduring untruth about measurement and parametric statistics. Can Psychol 1980; 21: 134-35.
35. Gaito J. Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychol Bull 1980; 87: 564-67.
36. Gaito J, Yokubynas R. An empirical basis for the statement that measurement scale properties (and meaning) are irrelevant in statistical analyses. Bull Psychonomic Soc 1986; 24: 449-50.
37. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthr Rheuma 1985; 28: 542-47.
38. Miller DH, Grossman RI, Reingold SC, McFarland HF. The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. Brain 1998; 121: 3-24.
39. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Hajnal JV, Narayana PA, Udupa JK, Yousry TA et al. Quantitative assessment of magnetic resonance imaging lesion load in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 64: 588-93.
40. Lycklama a Nijeholt GJ, Van Walderveen MAA, Castelijns JA, Van Waesberghe JHTM, Polman C, Scheltens P et al. Brain and spinal cord abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: Correlation between MRI parameters, clinical subtypes and symptoms. Brain 1998; 121: 687-97.
41. Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Kurtzke scales revisited: The application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000; 123: 1027-40.
42. Ciccarelli O, Brex PA, Thompson AJ, Miller DH. Disability and lesion load in MS: A reassessment using MS functional composite and 3D fast FLAIR. J Neurol 2002; 249: 18-24.
43. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory, Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
44. Kurtzke JF. On the evaluation of disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1961; 11: 656-94.
45. Cronbach U, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955; 52: 281-302.
46. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 81-105.