This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To assess practice effects, and intrarater and interrater reliability of the MS functional composite (MSFC) outcome measure.
Background: To address the poor reliability and insensitivity to change of available MS clinical rating scales, the National MS Society’s Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force developed the MSFC, a multidimensional quantitative clinical outcome measure that includes tests of leg function/ambulation (Timed 25-Foot Walk), arm function (Nine-Hole Peg Test), and cognitive function (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test).
Methods: Ten patients with secondary progressive MS underwent six testing sessions over a 2-week period. The MSFC was administered by the same examining technician in the first five sessions and by the other technician in the sixth. Patients were reassessed by both technicians after 6 months (sessions 7 and 8). The MSFC score was calculated as the mean of the Z scores of the three components. A pooled dataset derived from secondary progressive MS patients in the placebo arms of previous clinical trials and natural history studies served as the reference population to standardize scores.
Results: Practice effects were evident initially but stabilized by the fourth administration. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.97 for the MSFC for session 4 versus session 5 (intrarater reliability). The ICC was 0.95 for session 5 versus session 6 (interrater reliability), and was 0.96 for session 7 versus session 8 when patients were reassessed 6 months later.
Conclusions: The MS functional composite (MSFC) outcome measure had excellent intrarater and interrater reliability when standardized procedures were used to train examining technicians and to assess patients. Prebaseline testing sessions should be included in clinical trials employing the MSFC to compensate for practice effects.
- Received July 28, 1999.
- Accepted October 1, 1999.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
