4.4 Article

Validation of the spanish version of the multiple sclerosis international quality of life (musiqol) questionnaire

Journal

BMC NEUROLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-11-127

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Merck-Serono S.A. Geneva, Switzerland, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Multiple Sclerosis International Quality Of Life (MusiQoL) questionnaire, a 31-item, multidimensional, self-administrated questionnaire that is available in 14 languages including Spanish, has been validated using a large international sample. We investigated the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of MusiQoL in Spain. Methods: Consecutive patients with different types and severities of multiple sclerosis (MS) were recruited from 22 centres across Spain. All patients completed the MusiQoL questionnaire, the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) health survey, and a symptoms checklist at baseline and 21 days later. External validity, internal consistency, reliability and reproducibility were tested. Results: A total of 224 Spanish patients were evaluated. Dimensions of MusiQoL generally demonstrated a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.70-0.92 for all but two MusiQoL domain scores). External validity testing revealed that the MusiQoL index score correlated significantly with all SF-36 dimension scores (Pearson's correlation: 0.46-0.76), reproducibility was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.60-0.91), acceptability was high, and the time taken to complete the 31-item questionnaire was reasonable (mean [standard deviation]: 9.8 [11.8] minutes). Conclusions: The Spanish version of the MusiQoL questionnaire appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring quality of life in patients with MS in Spain and constitutes a useful instrument to measure health-related quality of life in the clinical setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available