The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument
Abstract
Based on scientific literature and interviews with clinicians and patients, we developed a quality of life instrument for use with people with MS called the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS). The initial item pool consisted of 88 questions: 28 from the general version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy quality of life instrument, plus 60 generated by patients, providers, and literature review. The validation samples comprised a mail survey cohort (N = 377) and a clinical cohort (N = 56). Both cohorts provides evidence for internal consistency of the derived subscales, test-retest reliability, content validity, concurrent validity, and construct validity. Principal components and Rasch measurement model analyses were applied sequentially to survey sample data, reducing test length to 44 questions, divided into six subscales: mobility, symptoms, emotional well-being (depression), general contentment, thinking/fatigue, and family/social well-being. Fifteen initially rejected questions were added back as miscellaneous (unscored) questions for their potential clinical and empirical value. The mobility subscale was strongly predictive of the Kurtzke Extended Disability Status Scale and the Scripps Neurologic Rating Scales. The other five subscales were not, indicating they measure aspects of patient quality of life not captured by the neurologic exam. The final 59-item English language instrument (FAMS version 2) is available for inclusion in clinical trials and clinical practice.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x · Cited by 47,139
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Patterson MB, Foliart R. Multiple sclerosis: understanding the psychologic implications. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1985;8:234-238.
- Reder A, Antel J. Clinical spectrum of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin North Am 1983;1:573-599.
- 10.1016/S0733-8619(18)30059-8 · DOI
- Rao S, Huber S, Bornstein R. Emotional changes with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. J Consult Clin Psychol 1992;60:369-378.
- Krupp L, Alvarez L, LaRocca L, Scheinberg L. Fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1988;45:435-441.
- 10.1037/h0092468 · doi:10.1037/h0092468
- Maybury CP, Brewin CR. Social relationships, knowledge and adjustment to multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984;47:372-376.
- Miller D, Kalb R, Daily P, Soderberg J, Choi T. Counseling section. J Neuro Rehab 1994;8:145-150.
- VanderPlate C. Psychological aspects of multiple sclerosis and its treatment: toward a biopsychosocial perspective. Health Psychol 1984;3:253-272.
- 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.1.5 · doi:10.1200/jco.1993.11.1.5
- 10.1212/WNL.33.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1212/WNL.34.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1016/0021-9681(60)90137-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Nyenhuis DL, Rao SM, Zajecka JM, et al. Mood disturbance versus other symptoms of depression in multiple sclerosis. J Int Neuropsycho Soc 1995;1:291-296.
- Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. Short homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. J Clin Psychol 1972;28:191-193.
- Wright BD Linacre JM. BIGSTEPS: a Rasch analysis computer program for all two-facet models. Chicago; IL: MESA Press 1993.
- Rasch G: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press 1980.
- Wright BD Stone MH. Best test design. Chicago; IL: MESA Press 1979.
- Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978;43:561-573.
- Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982;47:149-174.
- Wright BD Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago IL: MESA Press 1982.
Cited by
Filippi, M., Bar-Or, A., Piehl, F., Preziosa, P., Solari, A., Vukusic, S., & Rocca, M. A. (2018) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-018-0041-4 · Cited by 1,562
(2003) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-79 · Cited by 1,506
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13120 · Cited by 621
Intermittent Fasting Confers Protection in CNS Autoimmunity by Altering the Gut Microbiota
Cignarella, F., Cantoni, C., Ghezzi, L., Salter, A., Dorsett, Y., Chen, L., Phillips, D., Weinstock, G. M., Fontana, L., Cross, A. H., et al. (2018) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2018.05.006 · Cited by 568
Kappos, L., Freedman, M. S., Polman, C. H., Edan, G., Hartung, H.-P., Miller, D. H., Montalbán, X., Barkhof, F., Radü, E.-W., Metzig, C., et al. (2009) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70237-6 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- Cella, D. F., Dineen, K., Arnason, B., Reder, A., Webster, K. A., Karabatsos, G., Chang, C., Lloyd, S., Mo, F., Stewart, J., & Stefoski, D.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 129-139
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2026877602
- Cited by
- 413
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.80
- 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: Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.47.1.129
- The paper
- Cella, D. F., Dineen, K., Arnason, B., Reder, A., Webster, K. A., Karabatsos, G., Chang, C., Lloyd, S., Mo, F., Stewart, J., & Stefoski, D. (1996). Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.47.1.129
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.
