Mov Disord. Dec;20(12) International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS): appropriate for studies of Friedreich’s ataxia? Cano SJ(1). The International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) is an outcome measure that was created in by the Committee of the World Federation of. INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE ATAXIA RATING SCALE. I: POSTURE AND GAIT DISTURBANCE. SCORE: 1. WALKING. CAPACITIES observed during a 10 .
|Published (Last):||15 January 2008|
|PDF File Size:||19.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.5 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Appropriate for studies of Friedreich’s ataxia? Cano, PhD,1,2 Jeremy Atasia. Schapira, MD,1 and J. The other three meaningful rating scales to evaluate the health impact of dis- subscales did not pass standard criteria for tests of scaling ease and treatment that cannot be measured using conventional assumptions, reliability, and validity.
This small study recom- laboratory instruments.
Two assumptions of its mea- sures. Further icats testing, and examination of responsive- surement model were tested: Clinicians will require appropriate rating scales to United Kingdom, with onset lcars occurring during evaluate the health impact of disease and treatment that puberty.
As such, psychometric evaluation of rating scales is sion, and manage disability. ICARS is a neurologist-completed rating scale devel- Gene-focused technologies have led to new treatments oped to assess the symptoms of ataxia.
Subscale scores are summed to give a total score Received 29 Aataxia ; Revised 24 March ; Accepted 15 ranging from 0 to This strategy gener- ates the four subscale scores: High scores indicate worse ataxia.
As such, the model P. Patients were assessed by the same clinician method, in measurement terms, of grouping the 19 items.
ICARS Archives – Friedreich’s Ataxia News
All psychometric analyses are acceptable, reliable, and valid indicators ataxix ataxia se- except test—retest analyses were carried out on data pro- verity. Good targeting, which is required for good mea- Two basic assumptions of the ICARS measurement surement, is achieved when scores span the entire scale model were tested.
Second, are the maximum possible score and ceiling the proportion of subscale and total scores of the ICARS acceptable, reli- the sample getting the minimum aatxia score effects able, and valid? This aspect is important, because measures are Weighting or Standardization?
Two types of reliability, ad- of summated ratings. It is recommended that item—total to 9 monthsestimates the ability of a scale to produce correlations exceed 0. Evidence for va- when item—total correlations corrected for overlap ex- lidity is essential for the accurate and meaningful inter- ceed 0.
That is, items should correlate higher constructs to the ICARS, with which to compare its with the total score of their own subscale item— own- subscaleswe were limited to two basic types of validity scale correlation than with the total score of the icags testing.
It is rec- were atxia to assess whether they measured related ommended that item— own-subscale correlations cor- but different constructs.
Seventy-seven patients were recruited and assessed To achieve this we examined two types of acceptabil- using the ICARS. The sample included people with a ity, two types of reliability, and two types of validity.
Corrected item—total correlations for the total total and subscale scores. However, the magnitude of item— suggesting the subscales measured related but different own-subscale to item— other-subscale differences varied constructs.
In such an instance, it may be preferable, from scales. Although basic cri- ARS total score. Although two items had corrected item— analyses of item—item correlations, item—total correla- total score correlations below the recommended crite- tions, and factor analyses do not indicate the extent to rion, the discrepancies were small and are unlikely to which items are dependent data available from authors impact on measurement.
The PG subscale also seemed to because correlational methods cannot easily separate as- perform well, although results suggest its measurement sociation from dependency. In particular, 9 of an underlying latent trait, thus enabling an examination the 12 items in these three scales had similar correlations of the relationships between item response residuals.
A slight worsening in disease impact was IRR. Overall, these results provided further preliminary coupled with the high test—retest correlations and that evidence of icrs weakness of the KF, SD, icqrs OD scales, FDRA is a progressive neurological disease, suggest that as they failed to reach criteria for acceptable reliability the ICARS is unable to detect change. These results must be interpreted with interpretation aaxia only valid if clinically important change caution because the sample was small and video ztaxia has occurred between Time 1 and Time 2.
In addition, have that information, because we did not collect an multiple ratings of videotapes are problematic icasr independent assessment of change at time 2. We recom- they tend to overestimate reliability by excluding varia- mend that future responsiveness ataxua of the ICARS tion in instructing patients and performing the examina- incorporate such assessments of change at Time 2.
Third, our validity testing was limited, in taaxia, by can be either clinician-based e. Nevertheless, these analy- erably both. Certainly, more detailed psychometric ataxia, and this strategy alone may account for its limited evaluations of the ICARS in larger samples are urgently psychometric performance.
To determine this, we would needed if it is to be considered as a primary outcome need to compare the measurement properties of the IC- measure for clinical trials. ARS in different types of ataxia.
This uncertainty is because the model. Consequently, the validity of the ICARS why we would be cautious to propose this from our data is the extent to which it represents ataxia severity mea- set alone. First, our sample was small.
Kcars, it would sured by all the atacia items. However, to provide a compre- progression. This research emphasizes the importance of health, which are now recognized as being an essential fully testing measures before neurologists and research- part of health-care evaluation.
This study was supported by the Na- This study has several limitations. First, the sample tional Lottery to J.
Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA)
During the writing of this paper J. We thank all Eur J Neurol ;8: Uber degenerative atrophie der spinalen hinter- A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat ; Summated rating scale construction: Quantitative applications in the social sci- repeat expansion. Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Antioxidant treatment im- McGraw-Hill; Development of guide version 1. Health Assessment Lab; McHorney C, Tarlov A. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical ligands that mobilize mitochondrial iron.
Biochim Biophys Acta practice: Science, medicine, and the future: Psychometric considerations in ; Qual Life Res 7. Evaluating neurological out- ;2: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry An examination of theory and ment – which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation. J App Psychol ; Measurement, in handbook of survey research.
International cooperative ataxia rating scale for phar- What sample sizes for reliability macological assessment of the cerebellar syndrome. J Neurol Sci and validity studies? Qual Life Res ; What sample sizes for reliability and Double-blind crossover study of validity studies II: Measuring disease impact in disabling neurological con- degeneration.
J Neurol Sci ; An open trial of amantadine Curr Opin Neurol ; Subjective and objective measures of health: J Health Serv Res Policy ;2: Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link. Click here to sign up. Help Center Find new research papers in: