Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometrics and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: replacing the PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test

Drake, AS, Weinstock-Guttman, B., Morrow, SA, Hojnacki, D., Munschauer, FE, Benedict, RHB·2010·Multiple Sclerosis Journal
DOI 10.1177/1352458509354552
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The MS Functional Composite (MSFC) is a continuous scale of neurological disability for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Cognition is represented by the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), although the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) has been proposed as a promising alternative. MSFC scores were calculated using either the PASAT or the SDMT with the following reference populations: National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) Task Force, 400 MS patients, and 100 normal controls. A subgroup of 115 patients was followed longitudinally, with a test—retest interval of 2.3 ± 1.2 years. Pearson correlations were calculated and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to assess relationships among the MSFC components and composite scores, and differences in performance between patients and controls. Longitudinal changes were also assessed. Logistic regression was performed to determine which MSFC scores are most predictive of diagnosis, course, and work disability. All MSFCs had similar test—retest reliability and correlations with other measures including neurological disability, depression, and fatigue. The SDMT showed slightly better validity with respect to predicting diagnosis, course, and work disability, although the amount of variance accounted for was similar for each version of the MSFC. Our data, derived from a large sample of MS patients and normal controls, supports the validity of both PASAT and SDMT versions of the MSFC. Because the SDMT has slightly better predictive validity and has a relatively easier administration procedure, some clinicians and researchers may wish to replace the PASAT with the SDMT in future calculations of the MSFC using the calculation methods provided in this manuscript.

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 · 10.1177/1352458509354552

Cites

43 of 43 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 43 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Drake, A., Weinstock-Guttman, B., Morrow, S., Hojnacki, D., Munschauer, F., & Benedict, R.
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-12-22
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
228-237
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
DOI
10.1177/1352458509354552
OpenAlex
W2123359871
Cited by
263
References
43
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Psychometrics and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: replacing the PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1352458509354552
The paper
Drake, A., Weinstock-Guttman, B., Morrow, S., Hojnacki, D., Munschauer, F., & Benedict, R. (2010). Psychometrics and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: replacing the PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Multiple Sclerosis Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458509354552

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.