Acta Neurologica Belgica

, Volume 113, Issue 4, pp 397–402 | Cite as

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

  • Petar Filipović GrčićEmail author
  • Meri Matijaca
  • Ivica Bilić
  • Gordan Džamonja
  • Ivo Lušić
  • Krešimir Čaljkušić
  • Vesna Čapkun
Original Article


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.


Multiple sclerosis Visual analogue scale Walking ability Walking-based measures 



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.


  1. 1.
    Swingler R, Compston DAS (1992) The morbidity of multiple sclerosis. Q J Med 83:325–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R et al (2001) The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 124:962–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 14:988–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pearson OR, Busse ME, van Deursen RWM, Wiles CM (2004) Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders. Q J Med 97:463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 13:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hasson D, Arnetz BB (2005) Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ 8:178–192Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wewers ME, Lowe NK (1990) A critical review of visual analogue scale in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 13:227–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 93:889–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 16:707–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 32:41–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 65:40–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 5:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 12:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 47:2182–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 11:93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33:1444–1452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 60:31–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 74:1450Google Scholar
  19. 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 290:6–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 4:52–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 17:704–710Google Scholar
  22. 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 50:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA et al (1999) Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trail outcome measure. Brain 122:871–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 12:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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) 284:1607–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svensson E (2001) Construction of a single global scale for multi-item assessments of the same variable. Stat Med 20:3831–3846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Svensson E (2000) Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometr J 42:417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Svensson E (2000) Concordance between ratings using different scale for the same variable. Stat Med 19:3483–3496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Svensson E (2001) Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehabil Med 33:47–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlmaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Motl RW, Mc Auley E, Snook EM, Scott JA (2006) Validity of physical activity measures in ambulatory individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 28:1151–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 16:618–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 23:248–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murray CJL (2002) Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement, and application. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 93:830–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bolton JE, Wilkinson RC (1998) Responsiveness of pain scale: a comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients. Manipulative Physiol Ther 21:1–7Google Scholar
  37. 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 150:1117–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 79:313–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Youngblut JM, Casper GR (1993) Single-item indicators in nursing research. Res Nurs Health 16:459–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Messick S (1989) Validity. In: Linn RL (ed) Educational measurement, 3rd edn. Macmillan, NewYork, pp 13–103Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Motl RW, Snook EM, Mc Auley E et al (2007) Demographic correlates of physical activity in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 29:1301–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 4:49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 8:415–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 5:65–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Belgian Neurological Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petar Filipović Grčić
    • 1
    Email author
  • Meri Matijaca
    • 1
  • Ivica Bilić
    • 1
  • Gordan Džamonja
    • 1
  • Ivo Lušić
    • 1
  • Krešimir Čaljkušić
    • 1
  • Vesna Čapkun
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital Center SplitSplitCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital Center SplitSplitCroatia

Personalised recommendations