ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Healthy Adults:

(Goldman, MD et al, 2008; n = 20 healthy controls; average MSWS-12 score = 2.2 (5.6))

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Goldman, MD et al, 2008; n = 40 MS patients; average MSWS-12 = 28.2 (25); EDSS = 0 ¨C 6.5)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Hobart JC et al, 2003; n = 400 people with MS in community)

• Excellent when test was taken twice with an interval of 10 days (ICC = .94)

(Motl RW et al, 2011; n = 260 people with MS)

• Excellent after a period of 6 months (ICC = 0.86)
• Excellent after a periods of 12 months (ICC = 0.87)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Hobart JC et al, 2003; n = 54 to n = 602 for MS patients)

• Excellent in three samples of patients with MS (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.94 to 0.97)

(McGuigan C et al, 2004; n = 149 in community population; n = 53 in outpatient population with MS)

• Excellent in community and outpatient population with MS (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.97)

Multiple Sclerosis:

Concurrent validity:

(Cavanaugh JT et al, 2011; n = 21 people with MS; EDSS = 3.5 ¨C 7.5; MSWS-12 scores correlated with Daily Step Count, T25FW, six-minute walk test, BBS and ABC; Spearman¡¯s rho correlation used)

• Excellent for Daily Step Count (rho = -0.83)

• Excellent for T25FW (rho = 0.78)

• Excellent for six-minute walk test (rho = -0.80)

• Excellent for BBS (rho = -0.78)

• Excellent for ABC (rho = -0.72)

(Goldman, MD et al, 2008; n = 40 people with MS; EDSS = 0 ¨C 6.5; Spearmans¡¯ rho used for correlation)

• Excellent for EDSS (rho = 0.69)
• Excellent for MSFC (rho = 0.67)
• Excellent for 6 ¨C minute walk (rho = 0.81)

(Hobart JC et al, 2003; n = 54 for EDSS; n = 78 patients for physical functioning scale of the SF-36; n = 602 community people for the physical portion of the MSIS-29; n = 54 patients with the T25FW; Pearson¡¯s r for correlation used)

• Excellent for EDSS (r = 0.65)
• Excellent for SF-36 (r = -0.79)
• Excellent for MSIS-29 (r = 0.79)
• Adequate for T25FW (r = 0.46)

(McGuigan C et al, 2004; n = 54 for EDSS; n = 78 patients for physical functioning scale of the SF-36; n = 602 community people for the physical portion of the MSIS-29; n = 54 patients with the T25FW; Spearman¡¯s rho for correlation used)

• Excellent for EDSS (rho = 0.73 to 0.84
• Excellent for MSIS-29 (rho = 0.80 to 0.87)
• Excellent for T25FW in community and outpatient MS groups (rho = 0.65)

(Motl RW et al, 2008; n = 133 people with MS; Spearman¡¯s rho for correlation of the MSWS-12 with accelerometer counts over a 7-day period was 0.68)

• Excellent for MSIS-29 physical (rho = 0.78)
• Adequate for MSIS-29 psychological (rho = 0.36)

(Motl RW et al, 2010; n = 24 people with MS; Pearson¡¯s r showed a correlation of the MSWS-12 with oxygen cost (ml/kg/meter) but not for oxygen consumption (ml/kg/minute) for the six-minute walk test)

• Excellent for comfortable walking speed (r = 0.64)
• Excellent for fast walking speed (r = 0.62)

(Nilsagard Y et al, 2007; n = 81 people with MS; EDSS 3.5 ¨C 6.0; Kendall tau coefficient used for correlation)

• Adequate for Berg Balance Scale (Kendall tau coefficient = -0.37)
• Adequate for Four Square Step Test (Kendall tau coefficient = 0.34)
• Adequate for Timed Up and Go Cognitive (Kendall tau coefficient = 0.32)

(Sosnoff JJ et al, 2011; n = 13 people with MS; Spearman rho correlation between MSWS-12 and gait velocity as measured by an instrumented gait mat)

• Adequate (rho = -0.50)

Predictive validity:

(Nilsagard Y et al, 2009; n = 76 people with MS; EDSS = 3.5 ¨C 6.0; people who recorded at least one fall in the 3 month data collection period had an average of 75 on the MSWS-12 compared to 58 in non-fallers; OR = 1.03, Cl 95% 1.01 ¨C 1.05)

Multiple Sclerosis:

Floor Effects:

(Hobart JC et al, 2003; n = 602 people in community with MS; n = 54 with MS undergoing steroidal treatment)

• Adequate for 13.0% of MS people in community at minimum possible score.
• Adequate for 18.5% with steroidal treatment at minimum possible score.

Ceiling Effects:

(Hobart JC et al, 2003; n = 602 people in community with MS; n = 54 with MS undergoing steroidal treatment)

• Adequate with 4.7% with maximum possible score for people with MS in community.
• Excellent with 0% with maximum possible score undergoing steroidal treatment.

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Hobart JC et al, 2003; n = 53 patients with MS undergoing steroid treatment compared to EDSS and T25FW)

• Large change of effect size = 0.93 for MS steroid treatment.
• Moderate change of effect size = 0.45 for EDSS.
• Moderate change of effect size = 0.36 for T25FW.

(McGuigan C et al, 2004; the MSWS-12 changed more (mean = 19.3) in people who had a change of greater than or equal to 1 in EDSS scores than people who had no change in EDSS score in a 6 ¨C 24 month period)

(Nilsagard et al, 2009; n = 76 with MS; EDSS = 3.5 to 6.0; A cut-off of greater than or equal to 75 had a sensitivity of 52 and a specificity of 82 in predicting fallers vs. non-fallers.

(Riazi A et al, 2004; n = 43 patients receiving rehabilitation for MS; n = 46 patients receiving steroid treatment)

• Large change with effect size = 0.89 for MSWS-12 rehabilitation.
• Large change with effect size = 0.85 for MSWS-12 steroid treatment.