HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hobart, J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hobart, J Topic Collections Relevant Article

RATING SCALES FOR NEUROLOGISTS

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Jeremy Hobart
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Peninsula Medical School, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK; Jeremy.Hobart@phnt.swest.nhs.uk

Keywords: Ashworth scale of spasticity; multiple sclerosis walking scale; rating scales

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

A neurologist once told me that he found the subject of rating scales "exceedingly dull", while another found the area "abstruse". I have therefore attempted to produce an overview that is helpful and conveys some of the basic principals underlying outcomes measurement and rating scales. Clinicians must realise that because this is an alien and somewhat "dry" area, they may need to invest some time to appreciate the issues. Instead of discussing specific scales or rating scales for rehabilitation, which will only be relevant to a limited audience, I have chosen to discuss the importance of rating scales and how to achieve high quality measurement. I hope this makes the text more widely applicable to the neurological community.

The take home message is simple; neurologists need to take their rating scales very seriously.

	WHY ARE RATING SCALES IMPORTANT?

 
Rating scales are important because they are a method of measurement. Measurement is important because inferences are . . . [Full text of this article]

Relevant Article

Principles of neurological rehabilitation

M P Barnes
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2003 74: iv3-iv7. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Hagell and C. Nygren The 39 item Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) revisited: implications for evidence based medicine J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, November 1, 2007; 78(11): 1191 - 1198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Hagell Self-reported health in people with Parkinson's disease left untreated at diagnosis J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2007; 78(5): 442 - 442. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Cano, R. J. O'Connor, A. J. Thompson, and J. C. Hobart Exploring disability rating scale responsiveness II: Do more response options help? Neurology, December 12, 2006; 67(11): 2056 - 2059. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Hobart, A. Riazi, A. J. Thompson, I. M. Styles, W. Ingram, P. J. Vickery, M. Warner, P. J. Fox, and J. P. Zajicek Getting the measure of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88) Brain, January 1, 2006; 129(1): 224 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L Nicholl, J C Hobart, A F. Cramp, and A S Lowe-Strong Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis: not as simple as it sounds Multiple Sclerosis, December 1, 2005; 11(6): 708 - 712. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L Laberge, C Gagnon, S Jean, and J Mathieu Fatigue and daytime sleepiness rating scales in myotonic dystrophy: a study of reliability J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, October 1, 2005; 76(10): 1403 - 1405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]