Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2005 Nov;76(11):1539–1543. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.064584

How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales

J Hobart 1, A Riazi 1, D Lamping 1, R Fitzpatrick 1, A Thompson 1
PMCID: PMC1739386  PMID: 16227547

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the responsiveness of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) with other self report scales in three multiple sclerosis (MS) samples using a range of methods. To estimate the impact on clinical trials of differing scale responsiveness.

Methods: We studied three discrete MS samples: consecutive admissions for rehabilitation; consecutive admissions for steroid treatment of relapses; and a cohort with primary progressive MS (PPMS). All patients completed four scales at two time points: MSIS-29; Short Form 36 (SF-36); Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS); and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We determined: (1) the responsiveness of each scale in each sample (effect sizes): (2) the relative responsiveness of competing scales within each sample (relative efficiency): (3) the differential responsiveness of competing scales across the three samples (relative precision); and (4) the implications for clinical trials (samples size estimates scales to produce the same effect size).

Results: We studied 245 people (64 rehabilitation; 77 steroids; 104 PPMS). The most responsive physical and psychological scales in both rehabilitation and steroids samples were the MSIS-29 physical scale and the GHQ-12. However, the relative ability of different scales to detect change in the two samples was variable. Differing responsiveness implied more than a twofold impact on sample size estimates.

Conclusions: The MSIS-29 was the most responsive physical and second most responsive psychological scale. Scale responsiveness differs notably within and across samples, which affects sample size calculations. Results of clinical trials are scale dependent.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (74.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cella D. F., Dineen K., Arnason B., Reder A., Webster K. A., karabatsos G., Chang C., Lloyd S., Steward J., Stefoski D. Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology. 1996 Jul;47(1):129–139. doi: 10.1212/wnl.47.1.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cudkowicz Merit E., Schoenfeld David, Williams Linda. Improving the responsiveness of rating scales: the challenge of stepping twice into the same river. Neurology. 2004 May 25;62(10):1666–1667. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000127308.91353.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., Hobart J. C., Thompson A. J. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1997 Aug;42(2):236–244. doi: 10.1002/ana.410420216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Freeman J. A., Playford E. D., Nicholas R. S., Thompson A. J. A neurological rehabilitation unit: audit of activity and outcome. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1996 Jan-Feb;30(1):21–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hobart J. C., Lamping D. L., Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., McLellan D. L., Greenwood R. J., Thompson A. J. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology. 2001 Aug 28;57(4):639–644. doi: 10.1212/wnl.57.4.639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hobart J. C., Riazi A., Lamping D. L., Fitzpatrick R., Thompson A. J. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology. 2003 Jan 14;60(1):31–36. doi: 10.1212/wnl.60.1.31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hobart J., Kalkers N., Barkhof F., Uitdehaag B., Polman C., Thompson A. Outcome measures for multiple sclerosis clinical trials: relative measurement precision of the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler. 2004 Feb;10(1):41–46. doi: 10.1191/1352458504ms983oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hobart J., Lamping D., Fitzpatrick R., Riazi A., Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001 May;124(Pt 5):962–973. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.5.962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hoogervorst E. L. J., Zwemmer J. N. P., Jelles B., Polman C. H., Uitdehaag B. M. J. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): relation to established measures of impairment and disability. Mult Scler. 2004 Oct;10(5):569–574. doi: 10.1191/1352458504ms1078oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Katz J. N., Larson M. G., Phillips C. B., Fossel A. H., Liang M. H. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992 Oct;30(10):917–925. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Katz J. N., Phillips C. B., Fossel A. H., Liang M. H. Stability and responsiveness of utility measures. Med Care. 1994 Feb;32(2):183–188. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199402000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kazis L. E., Anderson J. J., Meenan R. F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Liang M. H. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1191–1192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Liang M. H., Larson M. G., Cullen K. E., Schwartz J. A. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985 May;28(5):542–547. doi: 10.1002/art.1780280513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McGuigan C., Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004 Feb;75(2):266–269. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Rogers W., Raczek A. E., Lu J. F. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS253–MS265. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Norman G. R., Stratford P., Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;50(8):869–879. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00097-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. O'Connor Rory J., Cano Stefan J., Thompson Alan J., Hobart Jeremy C. Exploring rating scale responsiveness: does the total score reflect the sum of its parts? Neurology. 2004 May 25;62(10):1842–1844. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000116136.22922.d6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Riazi A., Hobart J. C., Lamping D. L., Fitzpatrick R., Thompson A. J. Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler. 2003 Aug;9(4):411–419. doi: 10.1191/1352458503ms929oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Riazi A., Hobart J. C., Lamping D. L., Fitzpatrick R., Thompson A. J. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): reliability and validity in hospital based samples. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;73(6):701–704. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.73.6.701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES