Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v. 2.1) for patients undergoing prophylactic migraine treatment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure of migraine treatments. Although a number of migraine-specific HRQoL questionnaires exist, their measurement characteristics have only been examined for patients undergoing acute treatment of migraine. The goal of the current study was to evaluate measurement properties of the widely used Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v. 2.1) within a group of patients undergoing prophylactic migraine treatment.

Methods

Various measurement properties of the MSQ were examined in a sample of 916 migraineurs undergoing prophylactic treatment who had scores at baseline and follow-up, as well as baseline SF-36. First, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and differential item functioning (DIF) to assure the accuracy and stability across groups of the MSQ scoring for all three subscales (Role Restrictive, Role Preventive, and Emotional Functioning). Next, item- and scale-level properties were examined, such as item-total correlations, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity.

Results

Initial findings revealed that item 12 (measuring frustration on the Emotional Functioning subscale) performed poorly. Subsequent to its removal, the 13-item MSQ displayed excellent measurement properties, including stable latent structure at baseline and endpoint, no gender or age biases on items, appropriate item-level and scale-level reliabilities, and markedly higher convergent validity compared to discriminant validity.

Conclusion

The 13-item MSQ appears to be an appropriate measure of migraine-specific HRQoL for patients undergoing migraine prophylaxis. Moreover, given the stability of the latent structure over time, the interpretation of scores is likely to remain quite consistent throughout a clinical trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Residuals refer to the variance that is not accounted for by the relationship of a particular domain to its latent variable. For example, when examining MSQ item 1 (time with family) and RR (see Fig. 1), the residual of item 1 is all of the variance not otherwise accounted for by the path coefficient from RR to item 1 (i.e., the current modeled relationship), or 1—the square of the standardized coefficient (i.e., .752 = .436) for standardized values.

  2. Figure 1 shows the strength of the relationship between each latent factor and its reflective items. Weights on the path are standardized path coefficients, and squaring these path coefficients is akin to the amount of explained variance: item 1 has a coefficient of .91, which squared is equal to 82.8% explained variance. Thus, the latent factor of Role Restrictive explains 82.8% of the variance for item 1. Values on the curved paths between the factors indicate the size of the interfactor correlations.

Abbreviations

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

DIF:

Differential item functioning

EF:

MSQ emotional function domain

GFI:

Goodness of fit index

HDI:

Headache Disability Inventory

HIT-6:

Headache Impact Test 6-item

IRT:

Item response theory

MSQ:

Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire

NNFI:

Nonnormed fit index

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

RP:

MSQ role preventive domain

RR:

MSQ role restrictive domain

SF-36:

Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36

References

  1. Lipton, R. B., Stewart, W. F., Diamond, S., Diamond, M. L., & Reed, M. (2001). Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: Data from the American Migraine Study II. Headache, 41, 646–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lipton, R. B., Stewart, W. F., & Scher, A. I. (2001). Epidemiology and economic impact of migraine. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 17S, S4–S12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Treatment of primary headache: Preventive treatment of migraine. Standards of care for headache diagnosis and treatment. 2005 [cited December 4, 2006]; Available from: www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6580.

  4. Snow, V., Weiss, K., Wall, E. M., & Mottur-Pilson, C., for the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine. (2002). Pharmacologic management of acute attacks of migraine and prevention of migraine headache. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137, 840–849.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003). The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 12, 887–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jhingran, P., Osterhaus, J. T., Miller, D. W., Lee, J. T., & Kirchdoerfer, L. (1997). Development and validation of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire. Headache, 38, 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Silberstein, S. D., Neto, W., Schmitt, J., Jacobs, D., for the MIGR-001 Study Group. (2004). Topiramate in migraine prevention: Results of a large controlled trial. Archives of Neurology, 61, 490–495.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brandes, J. L., Saper, J. R., Diamond, M., Couche, J. R., Lewis, D. W., Schmitt, J., et al. (2004). Topiramate for migraine prevention: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 965–973.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Diamond, M., Dahlöf, C., Papadopoulos, G., & Neto, W. (2005). Topiramate improves health-related quality of life when used to prevent migraine. Headache, 45, 1023–1030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jhingran, P., Davis, S. M., LaVange, L. M., Miller, D. W., & Helms, R.W. (1998). MSQ: Migraine-specific quality-of-life questionnaire: Further investigation of the factor structure. Pharmacoeconomics, 13, 707–717.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin, B. C., Pathak, D. S., Sharfman, M. I., Adelman, J. U., Taylor, F., Kwong, W. J., et al. (2000). Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache, 40, 204–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003). Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT (TM)) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Quality of Life Research, 12, 981–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ware, J. E. Jr., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cole, J. C. How to deal with missing data: Conceptual overview and details for implementing two modern methods. In J. W. Osborne (Eds.), Best practices in quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (in press).

  18. Cole, J. C., Khanna, D., Clements, P. J., Seibold, J. R., Tashkin, D. P., Paulus, H. E., et al. (2006). Single-factor scoring validation for the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) in patients with systemic sclerosis and comparison with early rheumatoid arthritis patients. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1383–1394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Muraki, E. (1997). A generalized partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden, & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory. (pp. 153–164). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S − χ2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zumbo, B. D. (1999) A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT (TM)). Quality of Life Research, 12, 913–933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1998). Psychological testing. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cole, J. C., Rabin, A. S., Smith, T. L., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Development and validation of a Rasch-derived CES-D short form. Psychological Assessment, 16, 360–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by funding from Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Scientific Affairs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. QualityMetric, 640 George Washington Highway, Suite 201, Lincoln, RI, 02865, USA

    Jason C. Cole & Peggy Lin

  2. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Scientific Affairs, Titusville, NJ, USA

    Marcia F. T. Rupnow

Authors
  1. Jason C. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peggy Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcia F. T. Rupnow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason C. Cole.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cole, J.C., Lin, P. & Rupnow, M.F.T. Validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v. 2.1) for patients undergoing prophylactic migraine treatment. Qual Life Res 16, 1231–1237 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9217-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9217-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation