Quality of Life Research

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 187–206 | Cite as

A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis

  • B. G. Vickrey
  • R. D. Hays
  • R. Harooni
  • L. W. Myers
  • G. W. Ellison
Research Papers


The need for measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for clinical effectiveness research and for quality of care research, particularly for chronic diseases, is increasingly recognized. We assessed a measure of HRQOL for people with multiple sclerosis, a chronic neurological condition. We used the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (aka SF-36) as a generic core measure, to enable comparisons of HRQOL of patients with multiple sclerosis to those of other patient populations and to the general population. To enhance comparisons within groups of multiple sclerosis patients, these items were supplemented with 18 additional items in the areas of health distress (four items), sexual function (four items), satisfaction with sexual function (one item), overall quality of life (two items), cognitive function (four items), energy (one item), pain (one item), and social function (one item). The final measure, the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (MSQOL)-54 instrument, contains 52 items distributed into 12 scales, and two single items. Internal consistency reliability estimates for the 12 multi-item scales ranged from 0.75 to 0.96 in a sample of 179 patients with multiple sclerosis. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.66 to 0.96. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed two underlying dimensions of physical health and mental health. Construct validity was supported by significant associates between MSQOL-54 scales and degree of multiple sclerosis symptom severity in the prior year, level of ambulation, employment limitations due to health, admission to hospital in the previous year, and depressive symptoms.

Key words

Health-related quality of life instrument development multiple sclerosis quality of life SF36 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rolak LA. Multiple sclerosis. In: Evans RW, Baskin DS, Yatsu FM, eds.Prognosis of Neurological Disorders. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992: 295–300.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wynn DR, Rodriguez M, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. A reappraisal of the epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Olmsted County, Minnesota.Neurology 1990;40: 780–786.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute of Neurological Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINDCS).Multiple Sclerosis: A National Survey. Washington DC, US Government Printing Office, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Cost of Disorders of the Brain. Washington, DC: The National Foundation For Brain Research; 1992: 31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtzke JF. A proposal for a uniform minimal record of disability in multiple sclerosis.Acta Neurol Scand. 1981;64 (Suppl 87): 110–129.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slater RS, Scheinberg LC.Minimal Record of Disability in Multiple Sclerosis. New York: Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Willoughby EW, Paty DW. Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: A critique.Neurology 1988;38: 1793–1798.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brownscombe IA, Laupacis A, Rice GPA, Ebers GC, Noseworthy JH. Development of a disease-specific quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis.Neurology 1990;40 (Suppl 1): 142.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brownscombe IA.An Evaluative Health-related Quality of Life Measure for Multiple Sclerosis. Unpublished master's thesis, July 1990; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gulick EE. The self-administered ADL scale for persons with multiple sclerosis. In: Waltz CF, and Strickland OL, eds.Measurement of Nursing Outcomes, Volume I: Measuring Client Outcomes. New York: Springer, 1988: 128–159.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gulick EE. Model confirmation of the MS-related symptom checklist.Nurs Res 1989;38: 147–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gulick EE. Self-assessed health and use of health services.West J Nurs Res 1991;13: 195–219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patrick D, Deyo RA. Geheric and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.Med Care 1989;27: S217–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patrick DL, Erickson P. Types of health-related quality of life assessment. In:Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993: 113–142.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure.Med Care 1981;19: 787–805.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.JAMA 1989;262: 907–913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rudick RA, Miller D, Clough JD, Gragg LA, Farmer RG. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Comparison with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis.Arch Neurol 1992;49: 1237–1242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. A 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection.Med Care 1992;30: 473–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hays RD, Sherbourne C, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-item health survey 1.0.Health Econ 1993;2: 217–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinsky M, Gandek B.SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993: 10:15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cunningham WE, Bozzette SA, Hays RD, Kanouse DE, Shapiro MF. Comparison of health-related quality of life in clinical trial and non-clinical trial HIV infected cohorts.Med Care 1995;33: A515-A525.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. Health perceptions, energy/fatigue, and health distress measures. In: Steward AL, Ware JE, eds.Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. NC: Duke University Press 1992: 143–172.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Devinsky O, Vickrey BG, Cramer J,et al. Development of the quality of life in epilepsy (QOLIE) inventory.Epilepsia, in press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hadorn D, Hays RD. Multitrait-multimethod analysis of health-related quality of life preferences.Med Care 1991;29: 829–840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrews FM, Withey SB.Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans' Perception of Life Quality. New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lehman AF, Ward NC, Linn LS. Chronic mental patients: The quality of life issue.Am J Psychiatry 1982;139: 1271–1276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schapiro R. Symptom management in multiple sclerosis.Ann Neurol 1994;36: S123-S129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stenager E, Stenager EN, Jensen K. Sexual aspects of multiple sclerosis.Semin Neurol 1992;12: 120–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sherbourne C. Social functioning: Sexual problems measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds.Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. NC: Duke University Press, 1992: 194–204.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beatty WW. Cognitive and emotional disturbances in multiple sclerosis.Neurol Clin 1993;11: 189–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction.Neurology 1991;41: 685–691.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rao SM, Leo GJ, Ellington L, Nauertz T, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. II. Impact on employment and social functioning.Neurology 1991;41: 692–696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stewart AL, Ware JE, Sherbourne C, Wells KB. Psychological distress/well-being and cognitive functioning measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds.Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. NC: Duke University Press, 1992: 102–142.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS).Neurology 1983;33: 1444–1452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hays RD, Wells KB, Sherbourne CB, Rogers WH, Spritzer K. Functioning and well-being outcomes of patients with depression compared to chronic medical illness.Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52: 11–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika 1951;16: 297–334.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hays RD, Hayashi T. Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user's guide for the Multitrait Analysis Program on the microcomputer.Behav Res Methods Instruments Computers 1990;22: 167–175.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproductibility and responsiveness of health status measures: Statistics and strategies for evaluation.Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12: 142S-158S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Spritzer K. Methodologic issues in quality of life assessment for epilepsy surgery. In: Chadwick DW, Baker GA, Jacoby A, eds.Quality of Life and Quality of Care in Epilepsy: Update 1993. London: Royal Society of Medicine Services Limited, Round Table Series 31; 1993: 27–37.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jette AM, Cleary PD. Functional disability assessment.Phys Ther 1987;67: 1854–1859.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jette AM, Davies AR, Cleary PD, et al. The Functional Status Questionnaire: Reliability and validity when used in primary care.J Gen Intern Med 1986;1: 143–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research.Arthritis Rheum 1985;28: 542–547.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thalji L, Haggerty CC, Rubin R, Berckmans TR, Pardee BL.1990 National Survey of Functional Health Status: Final Report. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1991.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and validity among diverse patient groups.Med Care 1994:32: 40–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nunnally J.Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Guttman LA. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis.Psychometrika 1954;19: 149–161.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors.Multivariate Behav Res 1966;1: 245–276.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hays RD. PARALLEL.EXE: A program for performing parallel analyses.Appl Psychol Measurement 1987;11 58.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Montanelli RD, Humphreys LG. Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study.Psychometrika 1976;41: 341–348.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mosier CI. On the reliability of a weighted composite.Psychometrika 1943;8: 161–168.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life.Ann Intern Med 1993;118: 622–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Greenfield S. The state of outcome research: Are we on target?New Engl J Med 1989;320: 1142–1143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kurtzke JF, Beebe GW, Nagler B, et al. Studies on the natural history of multiple sclerosis VIII. Early prognostic features of the later course of the illness.J Chronic Dis 1977;30: 819–830.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. G. Vickrey
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. D. Hays
    • 2
    • 3
  • R. Harooni
    • 4
  • L. W. Myers
    • 1
  • G. W. Ellison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Social PolicyRANDSanta MonicaUSA
  4. 4.Sackler School of MedicineTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations