Cited by 183Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCancer survivorship and care

Disease specific quality of life instruments in multiple sclerosis: Validation of the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS)

Gold, S M, Heesen, C, Schulz, H, Guder, U, Mönch, A, Gbadamosi, J, Buhmann, C, Schulz, K H·2001·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

Quality of life (QoL) is discussed as an additional outcome measure in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, few questionnaires assessing disease specific QoL in MS have been published. On the basis of the literature and interviews with clinicians and MS patients, we have developed a disease specific QoL instrument and validated it in a broad range of patients with MS. In this study, a heterogeneous sample of n = 237 MS patients completed the newly developed Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS, in German language) and a battery of already validated questionnaires. They further underwent neurological scoring and objective tests. By these means, we investigated its validity, appropriateness, internal consistency, and retest reliability. Internal consistency and retest coefficients were high and satisfied psychometric standards. Convergent and discriminant validity was supported by direction, magnitude and pattern of correlations with other health measures. HAQUAMS subscales and its total score distinguished between patient groups of varied disease severity, cognitive impairment, and affective symptomatology. No floor or ceiling effects were found in either of the HAQUAMS subscales. The HAQUAMS is a reliable, valid and appropriate instrument for QoL assessment in multiple sclerosis. Data of responsiveness are currently being obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/135245850100700208

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gold, S. M., Heesen, C., Schulz, H., Guder, U., Mönch, A., Gbadamosi, J., Buhmann, C., & Schulz, K. H.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2001-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
119-130
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W2114796009
Cited by
183
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, quality of life, disease-specific quality of life, questionnaire validation, psychometric properties, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, cognitive impairment, affective symptoms, disease severity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Quality of Life, Reproducibility of Results, Sickness Impact Profile

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