Stability and relative validity of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Profile (MSIP)

References

• World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of functioning, Disability and Health, ICF. World Health Organization, Geneva 2001
   Google Scholar
• Wynia K, Middel B, van Dijk J P, de Ruiter H, Lok W, De Keyser J H, Reijneveld S A. Broadening the scope on health problems among the chronically neurologically ill with the International Classification of Functioning. Disabil Rehabilitation 2006; 28: 1445–1454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Toward a common language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. World Health Organization, Geneva, WHO/EIP/GPE/CAS/01.3.2002 Report; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Briggs S R, Cheek J M. The role of factor-analysis in the development and evaluation of Personality-Scales. J Personality 1986; 54: 106–148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark L A, Watson D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psycholog Assess 1995; 7: 309–319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynia K, Middel B, van Dijk J P, de Ruiter H, De Keyser J, Reijneveld S A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Profile (MSIP), Development and testing psychometric properties of an ICF-based measure. Disability and Rehabilitation; electronic pre-publication 21 June 2007; DOI: 10.1080/09638280701256868
   Google Scholar
• The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psycholog Med 1998; 28: 551–558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempen G, Doeglas D, Suurmeijer P. Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Northern Centre for Health Care Research. 1993
   Google Scholar
• Cardol M, de Haan R J, van den Bos G A, De Jong B A, de Groot I J. The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: The Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 411–419
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol M, de Haan R J, De Jong B A, van den Bos G A, de Groot I J. Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 210–216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J E. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25: 3130–3139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laman H, Lankhorst G J. Subjective weighting of disability: An approach to quality of life assessment in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 1994; 16: 198–204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Pouwer F, Pfennings L E, Lankhorst G J, van der Ploeg H M, Polman C H, Ader H J, Jonnson A, Vleugels L. Factor structure of the Disability and Impact Profile in patients with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 141–150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfennings L, Cohen L, Miller D, Gerbaud L, Vleugels L, Freeman J, Vernay D, Biolay S, Ketelaer P, Thompson A, Polman C, van der Ploeg H. Using the Short Form-36 with multiple sclerosis patients in five countries: A cross-cultural comparison. Psychol Rep 1999; 85: 19–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J E, Sherbourne C D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfennings L, Cohen L, van der Ploeg H, Polman C, Lankhorst G. Reliability of two measures of health-related quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Percept Mot Skills 1998; 87: 111–114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen J, Gibbons L, Gianas A, Kraft G H. Self-administered Expanded Disability Status Scale with functional system scores correlates well with a physician-administered test. Mult Scler 2001; 7: 201–206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzke J F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales; a practical guide to their development and use3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003
   Google Scholar
• Liang M H, Larson M G, Cullen K E, Schwartz J A. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of 5 health-status instruments for arthritis research. Arthrit Rheumat 1985; 28: 542–547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickrey B G, Hays R D, Genovese B J, Myers L W, Ellison G W. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 557–569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J E, Kemp J P, Buchner D A, Singer A E, Nolop K B, Goss T F. The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 235–244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middel B, de Greef M, de Jongste M J, Crijns H J, Stewart R, van den Heuvel W J. Why don't we ask patients with coronary heart disease directly how much they have changed after treatment?. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2002; 22: 47–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences2nd ed. Academic Press, New York 1988
   Google Scholar
• Middel B, Stewart R, Bouma J, van Sonderen E, van den Heuvel W JA. How to validate clinically important change in health-related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?. J Evaluat Clin Pract 2001; 7: 399–410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins Will G. A new view of statistics: Effect. Internet. 2002, Electronic citation. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html
   Google Scholar
• Newcombe R G, Altman D G. Proportions and their differences. Statistics with confidence, D G Altman, D Machin, T N Bryant, M J Gardner. British Medical Journal, Bristol 2005; 45–56
   Google Scholar
• Lohr K N, Aaronson N K, Alonso J, Burnam M A, Patrick D L, Perrin E B, Roberts J S. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin Therapeut 1996; 18: 979–992
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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; 47: 129–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickrey B G, Hays R D, Harooni R, Myers L W, Ellison G W. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 187–206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benito-Leon J, Morales J M, Rivera-Navarro J, Mitchell A. A review about the impact of multiple sclerosis on health-related quality of life. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 1291–1303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar