Literature DB >> 16320732

Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis: not as simple as it sounds.

L Nicholl1, J C Hobart, A F L Cramp, A S Lowe-Strong.   

Abstract

Data from a clinical study presented an opportunity to examine the psychometric properties of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale (LMSQoL), which has undergone limited psychometric evaluation. LMSQoL and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54) data were collected from 90 people with multiple sclerosis (MS) living in the community. Standard psychometric methods to examine data quality, scaling assumptions, scale to sample targeting, reliability, validity, and responsiveness were employed. The LMSQoL satisfied criteria for data quality (no missing data), scaling assumptions (item-total correlations: 0.24-0.56), reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71), and demonstrated responsiveness (effect size: 0.34). Correlations between the LMSQoL and MSQoL-54 physical (range: -0.02 to -0.50) and emotional subscales (range: -0.38 to -0.65) were similar; the magnitude and pattern was not consistent with predictions based on the construct purported to be measured by the LMSQoL. The LMSQoL satisfied many psychometric criteria in this small study, however, it was difficult to interpret the validity data. From this, two fundamental measurement issues are highlighted. Firstly, current methods of examining rating scales provide only circumstantial evidence of validity; secondly, health-rating scales should be developed on the basis of clear conceptual definitions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16320732     DOI: 10.1191/1352458505ms1235oa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mult Scler        ISSN: 1352-4585            Impact factor:   6.312


  7 in total

1.  Structural and construct validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale.

Authors:  Ipek Ensari; Robert W Motl; Edward McAuley
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The problem with health measurement.

Authors:  Stefan J Cano; Jeremy C Hobart
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 2.711

3.  Validation of the danish version of functional assessment of multiple sclerosis: a quality of life instrument.

Authors:  Jan Sørensen; Jette Bay; Torben Damsgaard; Elsebeth Heeley; Ida Rostgaard; Brita Løvendahl; Finn Boesen
Journal:  Mult Scler Int       Date:  2011-10-30

4.  Validation of the American version of the CareGiver Oncology Quality of Life (CarGOQoL) questionnaire.

Authors:  Sarah C Kaveney; Karine Baumstarck; Patricia Minaya-Flores; Tarrah Shannon; Philip Symes; Anderson Loundou; Pascal Auquier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  Relationships between changes in daily occupations and health-related quality of life in persons with multiple sclerosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Yael Goverover; Michelle H Chen; Amanda Botticello; Gerald T Voelbel; Grace Kim; John DeLuca; Helen M Genova
Journal:  Mult Scler Relat Disord       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 4.339

6.  Measuring the quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis in clinical practice: a necessary challenge.

Authors:  Karine Baumstarck; Laurent Boyer; Mohamed Boucekine; Pierre Michel; Jean Pelletier; Pascal Auquier
Journal:  Mult Scler Int       Date:  2013-02-28

7.  Responsiveness of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire to disability change: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Karine Baumstarck; Helmut Butzkueven; Oscar Fernández; Peter Flachenecker; Sergio Stecchi; Egemen Idiman; Jean Pelletier; Mohamed Boucekine; Pascal Auquier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 3.186

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.