ABSTRACT
The aim of the study was to translate and test the reliability and validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Scale (LMSQoL) in Turkish patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Demographic data of MS patients who had a registration in and followed up by a university hospital were recorded. The LMSQoL and Turkish Quality of Life questionnaire were applied to the patients. The internal consistency of the scales was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The validity of LMSQoL was examined by using correlation between the total scores of LMSQoL and Turkish Quality of Life questionnaire. Test-retest reliability was examined by using the correlation for the first and second applications of LMSQoL. Sixty-nine MS patients, (40.6% male, 59.4% female) were enrolled in the study. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found as 0.67 for the three positive items of LMSQoL. For the five negative items, Cronbach's alpha was found as 0.78. The correlation coefficient between the total scores of the scales was 0.80 (P<0.001). The Turkish version of the LMSQoL is a reliable and valid instrument and can be effectively used for measuring the impact of MS on the QoL.
Subject(s)
Multiple Sclerosis/rehabilitation , Quality of Life , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , TurkeyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to test the validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of Turkish version of FIS; the variables affecting FIS score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 71 MS patients and 68 healthy subjects were included to the study. RESULTS: Total FIS score and subscale scores were different statistically between MS patients and healthy volunteers in both first and second FIS applications (p<0.001). These results showed that FIS is validated in divergent direction. BDI score was higher in MS patients than healthy volunteers (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between two study groups for cognitive subscale scores, after the effect of depression was eliminated (p>0.05). To assess the test-retest reliability, the scores of two FIS applications did not differ statistically (cognitive t=1.948 p>0.05, physical t=1.420 p=0.160, social t=1.470 p=0.146, total t=1.990 p=0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.89 (99% confidence interval: 0.79-0.94) for cognitive, 0.95 (0.91-0.97) for physical, 0.91 (0.83-0.95) for social, and 0.93 (0.86-0.96) for total FIS scores (p<0.001). EDSS correlated with physical subscores in both applications of FIS. CONCLUSION: Turkish version of FIS, which is valid and reliable, seems an appropriate tool for the assessment of the effects of fatigue in Turkish MS population.
Subject(s)
Fatigue/diagnosis , Fatigue/epidemiology , Multiple Sclerosis/epidemiology , Neuropsychological Tests/standards , Psychometrics/methods , Activities of Daily Living , Adult , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Depressive Disorder/diagnosis , Fatigue/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Sclerosis/psychology , Neuropsychological Tests/statistics & numerical data , Predictive Value of Tests , Prevalence , Quality of Life , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires , TurkeyABSTRACT
The aims of this study were to investigate the Fatigue Severity Scale's Turkish version's validity, reproducibility, internal consistency and parameters. Multiple sclerosis patients' disability levels were determined by the Expended Disability Status Scale and depression status was established with the Beck Depression Inventory. The Fatigue Severity Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were administered through self-report methods and assistance, without guidance, given where needed. An interval of 1 week was allowed between the applications. Seventy-two definitely diagnosed multiple sclerosis patients and matched 76 healthy controls were included. The multiple sclerosis patients' median Expended Disability Status Scale score was 4.0 (1.0-9.5). There were statistically significant differences between multiple sclerosis patients' and healthy controls' Fatigue Severity Scale scores (P<0.001). After controlling for depression, Fatigue Severity Scale scores were lowered, but there was still a significant difference between them (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the interviews for Fatigue Severity Scale1 and Fatigue Severity Scale2 (P=0.719). Internal consistency for Fatigue Severity Scale was good for multiple sclerosis patients (ICC=0.81, P<0.001). Cronbach's alpha of Fatigue Severity Scale1 was 0.89; Fatigue Severity Scale2 was 0.94. Expended Disability Status Scale scores (P<0.05) and Beck Depression Inventory scores (P<0.001) have a significant effect on the Fatigue Severity Scale. In conclusion, scales have a great importance in following up and assessing the results of treatment strategies. The Turkish validation of the Fatigue Severity Scale is reliable and valid, and is an appropriate tool to assess fatigue in the Turkish multiple sclerosis population.
