The Preference-Based Multiple Sclerosis Index: an assessment of its psychometric properties and translation into Turkish

References

• The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the world health organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1403–1409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Mayo NE. Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Rodriguez AM, Mayo NE. The effects of clinical interventions on health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a Meta-analysis. Mult Scler. 2012;18(12):1686–1704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Ölmez N, et al. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of short form 36: a study of a patients with romatoid disorder. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999; 12(2):102–106.
   Google Scholar
• Kücükdeveci A, McKenna S, Kutlay S, et al. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham health profile. Int J Rehabil Res. 2000;23(1):31–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelik D, Çoban Ö. Short form health survey version-2.0 Turkish (SF-36v2) is an efficient outcome parameter in musculoskeletal research. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(5):558–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simeoni M, Auquier P, Fernandez O, et al. Validation of the multiple sclerosis international quality of life questionnaire. Mult Scler. 2008;14(2):219–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idiman E, Uzunel F, Ozakbas S, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of multiple sclerosis quality of life questionnaire (MSQOL-54) in a Turkish multiple sclerosis sample. J Neurol Sci. 2006;240(1-2):77–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R, EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Bouchard V, Moriello C, et al. Development of a bilingual MS-specific health classification system: the preference-based multiple sclerosis index. Int J MS Care. 2016;18(2):63–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Pickard S, Mayo NE. Developing a valuation function for the preference-based multiple sclerosis index: comparison of standard gamble and rating scale. PloS One. 2016;11(4):e0151905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Mayo NE. Validation of the preference-based multiple sclerosis index. Mult Scler. 2019;25(11):1496–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, et al. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janzen W, Turpin KVL, Warren SA, et al. Change in the health-related quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients over 5 years. Int J MS Care. 2013;15(1):46–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheung K, Oemar M, Oppe M, et al. EQ-5D user guide: basic information on how to use EQ-5D. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman T, Savci S, Coskuner Poyraz E, et al. Utilization of the expanded disability status scale as a distinctive instrument for walking impairment in persons with multiple sclerosis with mild disability. NRE. 2016;38(1):7–14.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman T, Özdoğar AT, Özakbaş S. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the patient determined disease steps scale in persons with multiple sclerosis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021;37(4):527–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman MD, Marrie RA, Cohen JA. Evaluation of the six-minute walk in multiple sclerosis subjects and healthy controls. Mult Scler. 2008;14(3):383–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paltamaa J, West H, Sarasoja T, et al. Reliability of physical functioning measures in ambulatory subjects with MS. Physiother Res Int. 2005;10(2):93–109.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kieseier BC, Pozzilli C. Assessing walking disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18(7):914–924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, et al. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-Item MS walking scale (MSWS-12). Neurology. 2003;60(1):31–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motl RW, Snook EM. Confirmation and extension of the validity of the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12 (MSWS-12). J Neurol Sci. 2008;268(1-2):69–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dib H, Tamam Y, Terzi M, et al. Testing patient-reported outcome measurement equivalence in multinational clinical trials: an exemplar using the 12-item multiple sclerosis walking scale. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2017;3(3):2055217317728740–2055217317728727.
   Google Scholar
• Gulick EE. Model confirmation of the MS-Related symptom checklist. Nurs Res. 1989;38(3):147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tülek Z, Polat C, Kürtüncü M, et al. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the multiple sclerosis-related symptom checklist. Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2017;54(4):328–333.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser HF. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35(4):401–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motl RW, Learmonth YC. Neurological disability and its association with walking impairment in multiple sclerosis: brief review. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2014;4(6):491–500.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research. 5th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar