Display options
Share it on

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

  1. Arch Neurol. 2004 Feb;61(2):226-30 - PubMed
  2. Mult Scler. 2008 Aug;14(7):940-6 - PubMed
  3. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1988;3(2):181-7 - PubMed
  4. Lancet Neurol. 2010 Apr;9(4):438-46 - PubMed
  5. Ann Neurol. 2001 Jul;50(1):121-7 - PubMed
  6. Mult Scler. 2004 Dec;10(6):675-8 - PubMed
  7. J Neurol. 2011 Nov;258(11):1920-8 - PubMed
  8. J Neurol Sci. 2010 Mar 15;290(1-2):75-9 - PubMed
  9. J Pers Assess. 1996 Dec;67(3):588-97 - PubMed
  10. Mult Scler. 2014 Apr;20(4):481-8 - PubMed
  11. J Neurol. 2007 May;254 Suppl 2:II22-II25 - PubMed
  12. Clin Neuropsychol. 2002 Aug;16(3):381-97 - PubMed
  13. J Neurol Sci. 2012 Sep 15;320(1-2):91-6 - PubMed
  14. Neurol Sci. 2016 Feb;37(2):165-79 - PubMed
  15. Int J MS Care. 2016 Jul-Aug;18(4):183-90 - PubMed
  16. BMC Neurol. 2011 Feb 02;11:17 - PubMed
  17. Mult Scler. 2005 Feb;11(1):81-4 - PubMed
  18. Mult Scler. 2003 Feb;9(1):95-101 - PubMed
  19. Eur Neurol. 2013;69(6):346-51 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Neurol. 2014 Sep;21(9):1219-25, e71-2 - PubMed
  21. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007 Nov;22(8):933-48 - PubMed
  22. Mult Scler. 2009 Feb;15(2):244-50 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Psychol. 1981 Apr;37(2):347-53 - PubMed
  24. Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52 - PubMed
  25. Mult Scler. 2010 Nov;16(11):1385-92 - PubMed
  26. Neurology. 1991 May;41(5):685-91 - PubMed
  27. Mult Scler. 1997 Feb;3(1):31-42 - PubMed
  28. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2011 Sep;24(3):115-21 - PubMed
  29. Neurology. 1991 May;41(5):692-6 - PubMed

Publication Types