Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation analysis of visual analogue scale and measures of walking ability in multiple sclerosis patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Neurologica Belgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Walking limitation assessment in multiple sclerosis patients (MSPs) is a demanding task, especially in the clinical setting. The aim of this study is to correlate the visual analogue scale (VAS), a simple method for measuring subjective experience, with measures of walking ability used in clinical research of MS. The study included 82 ambulatory MSPs who have resided in the local community. The applied measures of walking ability were the following: the single-item and patient-rated Walking Ability Visual Analogue Scale (WA-VAS), the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the 25-foot walk test (25FWT), the Six Spot Step Test (SSST), the 2 min timed walk (2 min TW), the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12), and step activity monitor accelerometer (SAM) during 7 day period. The SAM analysis included the average daily step count, the average steps/min of the highest 1 min of a day, and the average steps/min of the highest continuous 60 min of a day. The WA-VAS scores significantly and strongly correlated with EDSS (ρ = 0.679, P < 0.001), 25FWT (ρ = 0.606, P < 0.001), SSST (ρ = 0.729, P < 0.001), 2 min TW (ρ = −0.643, P < 0.001), MSWS-12 (ρ = 0.746, P < 0.001), average daily step count (ρ = –0.507, P < 0.001), average steps/min of the highest 1 min of a day (ρ = –0.544, P < 0.001), and average steps/min of the highest continuous 60 min of a day (ρ = −0.473, P < 0.001). Correlations between WA-VAS and measures of walking ability used in clinical research of MS were satisfactory. The results obtained in this research indicate that the WA-VAS could be an instrument for simple measurement of walking limitations in MSPs in the clinical setting.

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

References

  1. Swingler R, Compston DAS (1992) The morbidity of multiple sclerosis. Q J Med 83:325–337

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R et al (2001) The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 124:962–973

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heesen C, Bohm J, Reich C et al (2008) Patient perception of bodily function in multiple sclerosis: gait and visual function are the most valuable. Mult Scler 14:988–991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pearson OR, Busse ME, van Deursen RWM, Wiles CM (2004) Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders. Q J Med 97:463–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bethoux F, Bennett S (2011) Evaluating walking in patients with multiple sclerosis. Which assessment tools are useful in clinical practice? Int J MS Care 13:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hasson D, Arnetz BB (2005) Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ 8:178–192

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wewers ME, Lowe NK (1990) A critical review of visual analogue scale in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 13:227–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kempen JC, de Groot V, Knol DL, Lankhorst GJ, Beckerman H (2012) Self-reported fatigue and energy cost during walking are not related in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93:889–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wade DT, Collin C, Stott C, Duncombe P (2010) Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of Sativex (nabiximols), on spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 16:707–714

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Aragona M, Onesti E, Tomassini V et al (2009) Psychopathological and cognitive effects of therapeutic cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis: a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study. Clin Neuropharmacol 32:41–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zecca C, Petrini L, Limoni C, Staedler Gobbi C (2011) Tolerability and acceptance of prolonged low/delayed mitoxantrone regimens in patients with worsening multiple sclerosis. Eur Neurol 65:40–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Simsarian JP, Saunders C, Smith DM (2011) Five-day regimen of intramuscular or subcutaneous self-administered adrenocorticotropic hormone gel for acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis: a prospective, randomised, open-label pilot trail. Drug Des Dev Ther 5:381–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Richette P, Hilliquin P, Bertin P, Carni P, Berger V, Marty M (2011) Comparison of general practitioners and rheumatologists prescription patterns for patients with knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoscelet Disord 12:72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tomilson D, Bartels U, Hendershot E, Maloney AM, Ethier MC, Sung L (2011) Factors affecting treatment choices in paediatric palliative care: comparing parents and health professionals. Eur J Cancer 47:2182–2187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Motl BW, Bonsel GJ (2011) Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11:93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33:1444–1452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thomson AJ (2003) Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 60:31–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pearson OR, Musse ME, van Deursen R, Wiles CM (2003) Quantification of walking mobility in multiple sclerosis (MS) using an ambulatory activity monitor–a pilot study (abstract). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74:1450

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weikert M, Motl RW, Suh Y, McAuley E, Winn D (2010) Accelerometry in persons with multiple sclerosis: measurement of physical activity or walking mobility? J Neurol Sci 290:6–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Motl RW, Snook EM, Agiovlastis S (2011) Does an accelerometer accurately measure steps taken under controlled conditions in adults with mild multiple sclerosis? Disabil Health J 4:52–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Filipović Grčić P, Matijaca M, Lušić I, Čapkun V (2011) Responsiveness of walking-based outcome measures after multiple sclerosis relapses following steroid pulses. Med Sci Monit 17:704–710

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mc Donald WI, Compston A, Edan G et al (2001) Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 50:121–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA et al (1999) Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trail outcome measure. Brain 122:871–882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nieuwenhius MM, Van Tongren H, Sørensen PS, Ravnborg M (2006) The Six Spot Step Test: a new measurement for walking ability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 12:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM (1982) Two-, six-, and 12-min walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 284:1607–1608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Svensson E (2001) Construction of a single global scale for multi-item assessments of the same variable. Stat Med 20:3831–3846

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Svensson E (2000) Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometr J 42:417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Svensson E (2000) Concordance between ratings using different scale for the same variable. Stat Med 19:3483–3496

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Svensson E (2001) Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehabil Med 33:47–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlmaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  31. Motl RW, Mc Auley E, Snook EM, Scott JA (2006) Validity of physical activity measures in ambulatory individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 28:1151–1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gijbels G, Alders D, Van Hoof E et al (2010) Predicting habitual walking performance in multiple sclerosis: relevance of capacity and self-report measures. Mult Scler 16:618–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Snook EM, Motl RW, Gliottoni RC (2009) The effect of walking mobility on the measurement of physical activity using accelerometry in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 23:248–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Murray CJL (2002) Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement, and application. World Health Organisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  35. van Learhoven H, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BH (2004) A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scale as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatr 93:830–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bolton JE, Wilkinson RC (1998) Responsiveness of pain scale: a comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients. Manipulative Physiol Ther 21:1–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Paul-Dauphin A, Guillemin F, Virion JM, Briancon S (1999) Bias and precision in visual analogue scales: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Epidemiol 150:1117–1127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. du Toit R, Pritchard N, Heffernan S, Simpson T, Fonn D (2002) A comparison of three different scales for rating contact lens handling. Optom Vis Sci 79:313–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Youngblut JM, Casper GR (1993) Single-item indicators in nursing research. Res Nurs Health 16:459–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Messick S (1989) Validity. In: Linn RL (ed) Educational measurement, 3rd edn. Macmillan, NewYork, pp 13–103

    Google Scholar 

  41. Motl RW, Snook EM, Mc Auley E et al (2007) Demographic correlates of physical activity in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 29:1301–1304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Doerksen SE, Motl RW, Mc Auley E (2007) Environmental correlates of physical activity in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 4:49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Joyce CR, Zutshi DW, Hrubes V, Mason RM (1975) Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scale for rating chronic pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 8:415–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Grunberg SM, Groshen S, Steingass S, Zaretsky S, Meyerowitz B (1996) Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements. Qual Life Res 5:65–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the patients who participated in this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this study declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Center Split, Spinčićeva 1, 21000, Split, Croatia

    Petar Filipović Grčić, Meri Matijaca, Ivica Bilić, Gordan Džamonja, Ivo Lušić & Krešimir Čaljkušić

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Split, Spinčićeva 1, 21000, Split, Croatia

    Vesna Čapkun

Authors
  1. Petar Filipović Grčić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meri Matijaca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivica Bilić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gordan Džamonja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivo Lušić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Krešimir Čaljkušić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vesna Čapkun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petar Filipović Grčić.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Filipović Grčić, P., Matijaca, M., Bilić, I. et al. Correlation analysis of visual analogue scale and measures of walking ability in multiple sclerosis patients. Acta Neurol Belg 113, 397–402 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-013-0187-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-013-0187-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation