Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis

Open access
Sharrack, Basil, Hughes, Richard A. C., Soudain, Sara, Dunn, Graham·1999·Brain

Abstract

OullII;l y Many clinical rating scales have been proposed to assess the impact of multiple sclerosis on patients, but only few have been evaluated formally for reliability, validity and responsiveness. We assessed the psychometric properties of five commonly used scales in multiple sclerosis, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the Scripps Neurological Rating Scale (SNRS), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Ambulation Index (AI) and the Cambridge Multiple Sclerosis Basic Score (CAMBS). The score frequency distributions of all five scales were either bimodal (EDSS and AI) or severely skewed (SNRS, FIM and CAMBS). The reliability of each scale depended on the definition of 'agreement'. Inter-and intra-rater reliabilities were high when 'agreement' was considered to exist despite a difference of up to 1.0 EDSS point (two 0.5 steps), 13 SNRS points, 9 FIM points, 1 AI point and 1 point on the various CAMBS domains. The FIM, AI, and the relapse and progression domains of the CAMBS were sensitive to clinical change, but the EDSS and the SNRS were unresponsive. The validity of these scales as impairment (SNRS and EDSS) and disability (EDSS, FIM, AI and the disability domain of the CAMBS) measures was established. All scales correlated closely with other measures of handicap and quality of life. None of these scales satisfied the psychometric requirements of outcome measures completely, but each had some desirable properties. The SNRS and the EDSS were reliable and valid measures of impairment and disability, but they were unresponsive. The FIM was a reliable, valid and responsive measure of disability, but it is cumbersome to administer and has a limited content validity. The AI was a reliable and valid ambulation-related disability scale, but it was weakly responsive. The CAMBS was a reliable (all four domains) and responsive (relapse and progression domains) outcome measure, but had a limited validity (handicap domain). These psychometric properties should be considered when designing further clinical trials in multiple sclerosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/122.1.141

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Sharrack, B., Hughes, R. A. C., Soudain, S., & Dunn, G.
Venue
Brain
Published
1999-01
Volume
122
Issue
1
Pages
141-159
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2125053316
Cited by
258
References
7
FWCI
5.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/122.1.141
The paper
Sharrack, B., Hughes, R. A. C., Soudain, S., & Dunn, G. (1999). The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.1.141

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.