Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: January 2011

3 - The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

REFERENCES

1. HolmesJ, MadgwickT, BatesD. The cost of multiple sclerosis. Br J Med Econ 1995; 8: 181–193.
2. HatchJ.The economic impact of multiple sclerosis. MS Manag 1996; 3(1): 40.
3. HarveyC.Economic costs of multiple sclerosis: how much and who pays? Health Services Research Report: National Multiple Sclerosis Society; 1995 January. Report No.: ER-6005.
4. ProuseP, Ross-SmithK, BrillM, SinghM, BrennanP, FrankA. Community support for young physically handicapped people. Health Trends 1991; 23: 105–109.
5. ThompsonAJ, NoseworthyJH. New treatments for multiple sclerosis: a clinical perspective. Curr Opin Neurol 1996; 9: 187–198.
6. HobartJC, ThompsonAJ. Clinical trials of multiple sclerosis. In: RederAT, ed. Interferon therapy of multiple sclerosis. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1996; 398–407.
7. GuyattGH, FreenyDH, PatrickDL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Int Med 1993; 118(8): 622–629.
8. JenkinsonC, PetoV, FitzpatrickR, GreenhallR, HymanN. Self-reported functioning and well-being in patients with Parkinson's disease: comparison of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Age Ageing 1995; 24: 505–509.
9. KurtzkeJF. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452.
10. NunnallyJC Jr. Tests and measurements: assessment and prediction. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959.
11. SharrackB, HughesRAC, SoudainS, DunnG. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999; 122: 141–159.
12. HobartJC, FreemanJA, ThompsonAJ. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000; 123: 1027–1040.
13. WareJE Jr, SnowKK, KosinskiM, GandekB. SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, Massachusetts: Nimrod Press; 1993.
14. BergnerM, BobbittRA, PollardWE, MartinDP, GibsonBS. The Sickness Impact Profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care 1976: 14: 57–67.
15. EuroQol Group. EuroQoL: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.
16. PetoV, JenkinsonC, FitzpatrickR, GreenhallR. The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well-being for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 241–248.
17. PatrickD, DeyoR. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27(3 Suppl): S217–S232.
18. FreemanJA, HobartJC, LangdonDW, ThompsonAJ. Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection. The 36-item Short Form Health Survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68: 150–156.
19. NorvedtMW, RiiseT, MyerK-M, NylandHI. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12 and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care 2000; 38: 1022–1028.
20. HobartJC, FreemanJA, LampingDL, FitzpatrickR, ThompsonAJ. The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: why assumptions must be tested. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001; 71: 363–370.
21. FitzpatrickR, ZieblandS, JenkinsonC, MowatA, MowatA. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Qual in Health Care 1992; 1: 89–93.
22. CellaDF, DineenK, ArnasonB, RederA, WebsterKA, KarabatsosG, et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology 1996; 47: 129–139.
23. VickreyBG, HaysRD, HarooniR, MyersLW, EllisonGW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 187–206.
24. RudickR, AntelJ, ConfavreuxC, CutterG, EllisonG, FischerJ, et al. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 379–382.
25. FordHL, TennantA, JohnsonMH. Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 247–258.
26. SharrackB, HughesRAC. The Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): a new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 223–233.
27. FischerJS, RoccaNL, MillerDM, Ritvo, PG, Andrews, H, Paty, D. Recent developments in the assessment of quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 251–259.
28. PfenningsLE, CohenL, Van Der PloegHM, BramsenI, PolmanCH, LankhorstGJ, et al. A health-related quality of life questionnaire for multiple sclerosis patients. Acta Neurol Scand 1999; 100: 148–155.
29. FreemanJA, HobartJC, ThompsonAJ. Does adding MS-specific items to a generic measure (SF-36) improve measurement. Neurology 2001; 57: 68–74.
30. HobartJC, RiaziA, LampingDL, FitzpatrickR, ThompsonAJ. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Asses 2004; 8(9): 1–48.
31. HobartJC, RiaziA, LampingDL, FitzpatrickR, ThompsonAJ. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003; 60: 31–36.
32. HollandA, O’ConnorRJ, ThompsonAJ, PlayfordED, HobartJC. Talking the talk on walking the walk: a 12-item generic walking scale for neurological conditions. J Neurol 2006; 253(12): 1594–1602.
33. GrahamRC, HughesRA. Clinimetric properties of a walking scale in peripheral neuropathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Ps 2006; 77(8): 977–979.
34. RiaziA, HobartJ, LampingD, FitzpatrickR, ThompsonA. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): reliability and validity in hospital-based samples. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 73: 701–704.
35. RiaziA, HobartJ, LampingD, FitzpatrickR, ThompsonA. 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; 9(4): 411–419.
36. HoogervorstEL, ZwemmerJN, JellesB, PolmanCH, UitdehaagBM. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): relation to established measures of impairment and disability. Mult Scler 2004; 10(5): 569–574.
37. McGuiganC, HutchinsonM. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75(275): 266–269.
38. McHorneyCA, HaleySM, WareJE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(4): 451–461.
39. RaschG.Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Chicago: Danish Institute for Education Research, 1960.
40. LordFM, NovickMR. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
41. LikertRA.A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 5–55.
42. LikertRA, RoslowS, MurphyG. A simple and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scales. J Soc Psychol 1934; 5: 228–238.
43. ThurstoneLL. A method for scaling psychological and educational tests. J Educ Psychol 1925; 16(7): 433–451.
44. AndrichD, StylesIM. Report on the psychometric analysis of the early development instrument (EDI) using the Rasch model. Perth, WA: Murdoch University, 2004.
45. SmithEV Jr. Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a Rasch measurement perspective. J Appl Meas 2001; 2: 281–311.
46. WrightBD, MastersG. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA, 1982.
47. HobartJC, CanoSJ. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13(12): 1–200.
48. HobartJC, LampingDL, FitzpatrickR, RiaziA, ThompsonAJ. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124: 962–973.
49. HobartJC, RiaziA, LampingDL, FitzpatrickR, ThompsonAJ. How responsive is the MSIS-29? A comparison with other self-report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76(11): 1539–1543.
50. AndrichD.Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004; 42(1): I7–I16.
51. AndrichD, de JongJHAL, SheridanBE. Diagnostic opportunities with the Rasch model for ordered response categories. In: RostJ, LangeheineR, editors. Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. Münster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 1997;59–70.
52. WrightBD. Misunderstanding the Rasch model. J Educ Meas 1977; 14: 219–225.
53. KuhnTS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
54. KuhnTS. The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
55. HerndonR.Handbook of Neurologic Rating Scales. New York: Demos Medical Publishing, 2006.
56. McHorneyCA, TarlovAR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293–307.
57. NichollL, HobartJC, CrampAFL, Lowe-StrongAS. Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis: not as simple as it sounds. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 708–712.
58. AndrichD. A framework relating outcomes based education and the taxonomy of educational objectives. Stud Educ Eval 2002a; 28: 35–59.
59. AndrichD. Implication and applications of modern test theory in the context of outcomes based research. Stud Educ Eval 2002b; 28: 103–121.