Int J MS Care. 2018 Jan-Feb;20(1):49-54. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2017-011.
Reliability and Validity of a Danish Version of the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire.
International journal of MS care
Tobias Sejbæk, Morten Blaabjerg, Pippi Sprogøe, Mads Ravnborg
PMID: 29507543
PMCID: PMC5825986 DOI: 10.7224/1537-2073.2017-011
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than half of all patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) acquire cognitive impairment as part of their disease progression. Because cognitive dysfunction adds substantially to disability and coping strategies, a cost-effective screening tool is needed for cognitive impairment. The Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) has previously shown good validity in American, Argentinean, and Dutch MS cohorts. We sought to test reliability and validity of a Danish translation of the MSNQ compared with formal neuropsychological testing, and measures of depression and disability, and to compare self-reported cognition with Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) results.
METHODS: Of 126 patients with MS and their informants tested with the MSNQ, 77 also underwent formal neuropsychological testing. All patients were tested with the SDMT and assessed clinically using the Expanded Disability Status Scale and MS Impairment Scale.
RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the MSNQ-P was significant (R
CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support use of the MSNQ as a sensitive or valid screening tool for cognitive impairment in Danish patients with MS.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Sejbæk served on the scientific advisory boards of Novartis, Biogen, Teva, Merck, and Roche; received travel funding or speaker honoraria from Biogen, Teva, and Novartis; received honoraria from l
References
- Arch Neurol. 2004 Feb;61(2):226-30 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2008 Aug;14(7):940-6 - PubMed
- Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1988;3(2):181-7 - PubMed
- Lancet Neurol. 2010 Apr;9(4):438-46 - PubMed
- Ann Neurol. 2001 Jul;50(1):121-7 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2004 Dec;10(6):675-8 - PubMed
- J Neurol. 2011 Nov;258(11):1920-8 - PubMed
- J Neurol Sci. 2010 Mar 15;290(1-2):75-9 - PubMed
- J Pers Assess. 1996 Dec;67(3):588-97 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2014 Apr;20(4):481-8 - PubMed
- J Neurol. 2007 May;254 Suppl 2:II22-II25 - PubMed
- Clin Neuropsychol. 2002 Aug;16(3):381-97 - PubMed
- J Neurol Sci. 2012 Sep 15;320(1-2):91-6 - PubMed
- Neurol Sci. 2016 Feb;37(2):165-79 - PubMed
- Int J MS Care. 2016 Jul-Aug;18(4):183-90 - PubMed
- BMC Neurol. 2011 Feb 02;11:17 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2005 Feb;11(1):81-4 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2003 Feb;9(1):95-101 - PubMed
- Eur Neurol. 2013;69(6):346-51 - PubMed
- Eur J Neurol. 2014 Sep;21(9):1219-25, e71-2 - PubMed
- Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007 Nov;22(8):933-48 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2009 Feb;15(2):244-50 - PubMed
- J Clin Psychol. 1981 Apr;37(2):347-53 - PubMed
- Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 2010 Nov;16(11):1385-92 - PubMed
- Neurology. 1991 May;41(5):685-91 - PubMed
- Mult Scler. 1997 Feb;3(1):31-42 - PubMed
- Cogn Behav Neurol. 2011 Sep;24(3):115-21 - PubMed
- Neurology. 1991 May;41(5):692-6 - PubMed
Publication Types