The Performance Scales disability measure for multiple sclerosis: use and sensitivity to clinically important differences

Carolyn E Schwartz, Victoria E Powell, Carolyn E Schwartz, Victoria E Powell

Abstract

Background: In 1993, the Performance Scales© was created to assess multi-dimensional disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). This tool has been used in a variety of settings and study designs internationally. The present work provides an overview of the history and psychometric characteristics of the Performance Scales©, reviews its use over the past two decades, and summarizes its responsiveness to subgroup differences.

Methods: A Google Scholar and Ovid search yielded 230 articles citing the Performance Scales©, of which 82 studies used the tool in empirical research. Twelve articles provided sufficient information to enable computation of effect sizes. Forest plots were used to show effect sizes for the overall summary score and by domain by patient demographics, MS disease trajectory, and treatment adherence.

Results: The Performance Scales© evidenced sensitivity to clinically important differences by disease trajectory and age (for selected domains). In contrast, groups distinguished by patient adherence to disease-modifying therapies and ethnicity were relatively small.

Conclusions: The Performance Scales© has been used in a large number of studies since its development, suggesting that this psychometrically sound tool is acknowledged to be a useful tool for MS clinical research. It is recommended that future work include the entire measure, so that the whole-person impact of MS can be characterized and considered in MS outcome research.

Keywords: Clinical trials outcomes; Disability; Epidemiological research; Interpretation; Multiple sclerosis; Patient-reported outcomes; Performance Scales; Quality of life; Rehabilitation; Responsiveness; Review.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Exclusion tree for articles that were identified in the Ovid search
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bar chart showing how often each of the Performance Scales© domain scores were used throughout the reviewed studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a-i Effect sizes with 95% confidence interval bars by subgrouping variable and domain, as available

References

    1. Cohen ET, Potter K, Allen DD, Bennett SE, Brandfass KG, Widener GL, et al. Selecting rehabilitation outcome measures for persons with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(4):181–9. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2014-067.
    1. Park C, Watson C. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used in secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) studies: A Systematic Review (P3. 215) Neurology. 2015;84(14 Supplement):P3–215. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001709.
    1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS) Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–52. doi: 10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444.
    1. Pia Amato M, Fratiglioni L, Groppi C, Siracusa G, Amaducci L. Interrater reliability in assessing functional systems and disability on the Kurtzke scale in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 1988;45:746–8. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1988.00520310052017.
    1. Noseworthy JH, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, Ebers GC, Group CCMS. Interrater variability with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and functional systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology. 1990;40:971–5. doi: 10.1212/WNL.40.6.971.
    1. Weiner HL, Dau PC, Khatri BO, Petajan JH, Birnbaum G, McQuillen MP, et al. Double-blind study of true vs. sham plasma exchange in patients treated with immunosuppression for acute attacks of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 1989;39:1143–9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.39.9.1143.
    1. Schwartz CE, Rogers M. Designing a psychosocial intervention to teach coping flexibility. Rehabil Psychol. 1994;39(1):61–76. doi: 10.1037/h0080312.
    1. Schwartz CE, Fierston S. The two sides of pseudo-bulbar disorder in multiple sclerosis: comparing one patient’s experience with a review of the neurologic literature. Neurorehabilitation. 1995;5:359–65. doi: 10.1016/1053-8135(95)00135-2.
    1. Schwartz CE, Vollmer T, Lee H. Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of impairment and disability for MS. North American Research Consortium on Multiple Sclerosis Outcomes Study Group. Neurology. 1999;52(1):63–70. doi: 10.1212/WNL.52.1.63.
    1. Marrie RA, Goldman M. Validity of performance scales for disability assessment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2007;13(9):1176–82. doi: 10.1177/1352458507078388.
    1. Motl RW, Snook EM. Confirmation and extension of the validity of the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12) J Neurol Sci. 2008;268(1):69–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.11.003.
    1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
    1. Motl RW, Pilutti L, Sandroff BM, Dlugonski D, Sosnoff JJ, Pula JH. Accelerometry as a measure of walking behavior in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2013;127(6):384–90. doi: 10.1111/ane.12036.
    1. Motl RW, Schwartz CE, Vollmer T. Continued validation of the Symptom Inventory in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurological Sciences. 2009:in press.
    1. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Genovese BJ, Myers LW, Ellison GW. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:557–69. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00001-2.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.; 1994.
    1. DeWolf L, Koller M, Velikova G, Johnson C, Scott N, Bottomley A, et al. EORTC Quality of Life Group Translation Procedure. Brussels: EORTC; 2009.
    1. Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M, et al. International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. QualLife Res. 1992;1(5):349–51.
    1. Hawkins M, Osborne R. Health Literacy Questionnaire: Translation and cultural adaptation procedure. Burwood VIC: Deakin University Australia; 2010.
    1. Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, Niero M, Wiklund I, McKenna S. Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. European Group for Health Management and Quality of Life Assessment. Health Policy. 1991;19(1):33–44. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90072-6.
    1. StataCorp . In: Stata: Release 13. Software S, editor. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2013.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe