ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cella et al., 1996; n = 377 for a mail survey cohort and n = 56 for a clinical cohort) 

Scores published during development of test:

• Survey Sample (n = 377) (mean (SD))
  • Mobility 13.9 (7.6) 
  • Symptoms 19.7 (5.9)
  • Emotional Well-Being 17.9 (6.8)
  • General Contentment 16.0 (6.8)
  • Thinking/Fatigue 20.6 (8.4)
  • Family/Social Well-Being 19.4 (5.9)
  • FAMS total 107.5 (32)
• Clinical Sample (n = 56)
  • Mobility 13.7 (6.5)
  • Symptoms 20.0 (5.9)
  • Emotional Well-Being 19.6 (5.5) 
  • General Contentment 16.5 (6.8) 
  • Thinking/Fatigue 20.3 (7.9) 
  • Family/Social Well-Being 20.6 (5.8)
  • FAMS total 110.6 (27.4)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cella et el., 1996)

• Adequate to excellent reliability with subscales (ICC = 0.81 - 0.91)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cella et al., 1996)

• Excellent consistency with the subscales (alpha = 0.82 - 0.96) 

(Riazi et al., 2003; n = 121;includes patients with MS undergoing rehabilitation (n = 57) and steroid treatment (n = 64); the health measures were completed before and after treatment)

• Adequate consistency with FAMS Mobility scale (alpha = 0.78)
• Excellent consistency with FAMS Emotional scale (alpha = 0.9)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cella et al., 1996)

• Excellent association of SF-36 Physical Component Scale (PCS) and FAMS Mobility scale (r = 0.62 ¨C 0.78)
• Adequate to excellent association of SF-36 Mental Component Scale (MCS) and FAMS Emotional Scale (r = 0.59 ¨C 0.62) 

(Riazi et al., 2003)

• Excellent correlation of FAMS Mobility with MSIS-29 physical (r = 0.71) and SF-36 PCS (r = 0.65)
• Excellent correlation of FAMS Emotional with MSIS-29 psychological (r = 0.70) and SF-36 MCS (r = 0.75) 

(Modrego et al., 2001; n = 36; mean age = 38.1 (17-66); patients all from the northeastern region of Spain diagnosed with probable or clinically definite MS; majority were women (66.6%) and had relapsing-remitting forms (83.3%)) 

• Excellent correlation of FAMS items with Incapacity Status Scale and Environmental Scale with mobility (r = 0.90), symptoms (r = 0.90), and emotional well-being (r = 0.76)
• Adequate correlation of FAMS items with general contentment, thinking and fatigue, family/social well-being, and additional concerns (r is equal to or less than 0.40)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cella et al., 1996)

• Patients that have progressive disease have lower QOL than patients that have relapsing remitting (p < 0.001)
• FAMS Mobility score means are significantly different in patients with EDSS scores equal to or less than 6.0 as compared to those that are > 6.0 (p < 0.001)

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Riazi et al., 2003)

• Excellent lack of ceiling effect in the FAMS Mobility when tested in 121 patients with MS (0%)
• Adequate lack of ceiling effect in the FAMS Emotional when tested in 121 patients with MS (2.5%) 
• Adequate lack of floor effect in the FAMS Mobility and FAMS Emotional when tested in 121 patients with MS) 

(Nicholl et al., 2001; n = 96; questionnaires were either sent by post or completed at interview with patients )

• FAMS did not show a floor effect on physical functioning in contrast to MSQOL-54

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cella et al., 1996)

• Large change of effect size of FAMS total = 1.06
  • Large change of effect size for mobility (1.24), symptoms (0.73), emotional well-being (0.79), general contentment (0.78), thinking/fatigue (0.87)
  • Moderate change in effect size for family/social well-being (0.56)

(Riazi et al., 2003)

• Moderate change in effect size for FAMS Mobility and Emotional (0.64 and 0.45, respectively)