Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 1943–1954 | Cite as

Validation of a new quality of life scale related to multiple sclerosis and relapses

  • Antoine Baroin
  • Gilles Chopard
  • Gaye Siliman
  • Clément Michoudet
  • Aurore Vivot
  • Chrystelle Vidal
  • Hassna Mokadym
  • Annick Lavier
  • Ėric Berger
  • Lucien Rumbach
  • Nathalie Rude



Multiple sclerosis (MS) has a significant impact on all aspects of patient quality of life (QoL). Furthermore, the fear of relapses and the feelings of patients during relapses must be taken into account in care. The objective of this work was to validate the PERSEPP scale (“PERception de la Sclérose En Plaques et de ses Poussées”), a new QoL evaluation scale for relapsing–remitting forms of MS.


Relapsing–remitting patients were included in a multicenter study. Various validation criteria of this scale were analyzed: acceptability, construct validity (internal and external validity), and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility test–retest). Responsiveness will be studied in order to complete the validation process.


The responses of 305 MS patients were analyzed. The process of reducing the items led us to retain 66 items of a total of 112 items. The 66-item PERSEPP scale (final version) was well accepted. Five dimensions (33 items) make up the scale: social support (α = 0.81), relationship difficulties (α = 0.71), fatigue (α = 0.74), state of mind and associated sleep disorders (α = 0.78), and time perspective (α = 0.75). Three additional modules (33 items) explore coping (α = 0.60), symptoms (α = 0.89), and treatment (α = 0.92). Test–retest reliability, measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), was acceptable (0.72 < ICC < 0.92).


The PERSEPP scale has been validated and could be used in clinical trials and in daily practice. Additional studies will then complete the validation process.


Multiple sclerosis Health-related quality of life Relapsing–remitting form Validation PERSEPP scale 



We would like to thank the Ligue Française contre la Sclérose En Plaques (LFSEP) and the AGIRSEP group, as well as Franck Leroux and Frances Sheppard (Clinical Investigation Center: Inserm CIT 808, Besançon) for their participation in this project. Co-investigators: Marc Debouverie, Sophie Pittion-Vouyovitch (Nancy), Thibault Moreau (Dijon), Jérôme de Sèze, Marie-Céline Fleury (Strasbourg), Pierre Clavelou, Dominique Aufauvre (Clermont-Ferrand), François Ziegler (Belfort), Christine Clerc (Montbéliard), Constantino Gomes (Lons-le-Saunier), Annabelle Jary (Vesoul), Olivier Heinzlef (Poissy). Private practice neurologists: Jean Galmiche (Besançon), Claudine Portha (Besançon), Didier Chavot (Besançon), Claire Sevrin (Besançon), Philippe Sevrin (Besançon), Valérie Martin-Clair (Besançon), Véronique Seyeux (Pontarlier), Pascale Labouret (Belfort), Christophe Zaenker (Colmar). The study was funded by the Ligue française contre la sclérose en plaques (LFSEP) and the Agirsep group.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Siepman, T. A., Janssens, A. C., de Koning, I., Polman, C. H., Boringa, J. B., & Hintzen, R. Q. (2008). The role of disability and depression in cognitive functioning within 2 years after multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Journal of Neurology, 255(6), 910–916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penner, I. K., Bechtel, N., Raselli, C., Stöcklin, M., Opwis, K., Kappos, L., et al. (2007). Fatigue in multiple sclerosis: Relation to depression, physical impairment, personality and action control. Multiple Sclerosis, 13(9), 1161–1167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Solari, A. (2005). Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clavelou, P., Auclair, C., Taithe, F., & Gerbaud, L. (2009). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Theoretical and practical aspects. Revue Neurologique, 165(2), F115–F124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riazi, A., Porter, B., Chataway, J., Thompson, A. J., & Hobart, J. C. (2011). A tool to measure the attributes of receiving IV therapy in a home versus hospital setting: The Multiple Sclerosis Relapse Management Scale (MSRMS). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vernay, D., Gerbaud, L., Biolay, S., Coste, J., Debourse, J., Aufauvre, D., et al. (2000). Quality of life and multiple sclerosis: Validation of the French version of the self-questionnaire (SEP-59). Revue Neurologique, 156(3), 247–263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baumstarck-Barrau, K., Pelletier, J., Simeoni, M.-C., Auquier, P., & the MusiQol Study Group. (2011). French validation of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life Questionnaire. Revista de Neurologia, 167(6–7), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKenna, S. P., Doward, L. C., Twiss, J., Hagell, P., Oprandi, N. C., Fisk, J., et al. (2010). International development of the Patient-Reported Outcome Indices for Multiple Sclerosis (PRIMUS). Value Health, 13(8), 946–951.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirst, C., Ingram, G., Pearson, O., Pickersgill, T., Scolding, N., & Robertson, N. (2008). Contribution of relapses to disability in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology, 255(2), 280–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ozakbas, S., Cagiran, I., Ormeci, B., & Idiman, E. (2004). Correlations between multiple sclerosis functional composite, expanded disability status scale and health-related quality of life during and after treatment of relapses in patients with multiple sclerosis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 218(1–2), 3–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halper, J. (2007). The psychosocial effect of multiple sclerosis: The impact of relapses. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 256(1), S34–S38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalb, R. (2007). The emotional and psychological impact of multiple sclerosis relapses. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 256(1), S29–S33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baroin, A., Chopard, G., Mokadym, H., Lavier, A., Berger, E., Rumbach, L., et al. (2010). Establishing a quality of life scale related to relapses in multiple sclerosis. 62nd annual meeting of American Academy of Neurology, Toronto. Neurology, 74(2), A160.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baroin, A., Mokadym, H., Chopard, G., Lavier, A., Berger, E., Rumbach, L., et al. (2012). Establishing an evaluation scale for the perception of quality of life related to relapsing-remitting forms of multiple sclerosis and feasibility study. International Journal of Neuroscience, 122(1), 9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33(11), 1444–1452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gandek, B., Ware, J. E., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J. B., Brazier, J. E., et al. (1998). Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in Nine Countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1171–1178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radat, F., Lafittau, M., Ouallet, J. C., Brochet, B., & Jouvent, R. (2007). Validation of EHD self questionnaire in multiple sclerosis. Encephale, 33(1), 49–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simeoni, M.-C., Auquier, P., Fernandez, O., Flachenecker, P., Stecchi, S., Constantinescu, C. S., et al. (2008). Validation of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire. Multiple Sclerosis, 14(2), 219–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Falissard, B. (2001). Mesurer la subjectivité en santé. Perspective méthodologique et statistique (p. 211). Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sébille, V., Hardouin, J.-B., Le Néel, T., Kubis, G., Boyer, F., Guillemin, F., et al. (2010). Methodological issues regarding power of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT)-based approaches for the comparison of patient-reported outcomes in two groups of patients—a simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prieto, L., Alonso, J., & Lamarca, R. (2003). Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Penta, M., Arnould, C., & Decruynaere, C. (2005). Développer et interpréter une échelle de mesure. Applications du modèle de Rasch (p. 186). Sprimont: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramp, M., Khan, F., Misajon, R. A., & Pallant, J. F. (2009). Rasch analysis of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andrich, D., Sheridan, B. E., & Luo G. (2010). RUMM2030 (Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Model version 5.1) [Computer software]. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Béthoux, F. (2006). Fatigue and multiple sclerosis. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique, 49(6), 265–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Préau, M., Apostolidis, T., François, C., Raffi, F., & Spire, B. (2007). Time perspective and quality of life among HIV-infected patients in the context of HAART. AIDS Care, 19(4), 449–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Montel, S. R., & Bungener, C. (2007). Coping and quality of life in one hundred and thirty five subjects with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 13(3), 393–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moreau, T., Schmidt, N., Joyeux, O., Bungener, C., & Souvignet, V. (2009). Coping strategy and anxiety evolution in multiple sclerosis patients initiating interferon-beta treatment. European Neurology, 62(2), 79–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doward, L. C., McKenna, S. P., Meads, D. M., Twiss, J., & Eckert, B. J. (2009). The development of patient-reported outcome indices for multiple sclerosis (PRIMUS). Multiple Sclerosis, 15(9), 1092–1102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Twiss, J., Doward, L. C., McKenna, S. P., & Eckert, B. (2010). Interpreting scores on multiple sclerosis-specific patient reported outcome measures (the PRIMUS and U-FIS). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Buljevac, D., Hop, W. C. J., Reedeker, W., Janssens, A. C. J. W., van der Meché, F. G. A., van Doorn, P. A., et al. (2003). Self reported stressful life events and exacerbations in multiple sclerosis: Prospective study. BMJ, 327(7416), 646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Baroin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gilles Chopard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gaye Siliman
    • 4
  • Clément Michoudet
    • 4
  • Aurore Vivot
    • 4
  • Chrystelle Vidal
    • 4
  • Hassna Mokadym
    • 2
  • Annick Lavier
    • 1
    • 4
  • Ėric Berger
    • 1
  • Lucien Rumbach
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nathalie Rude
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyBesançon University HospitalBesançon CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory of Neurosciences, EA 481University of Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance
  3. 3.Laboratory of Imagery and Cognitive NeurosciencesUMR 7237, University of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.Clinical Investigation Center in Technological Innovation (Inserm CIC-IT 808)Besançon University HospitalBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations