Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2013

The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients

Authors: Regina Rendas-Baum, Lisa M. Bloudek, Gregory A. Maglinte, Sepideh F. Varon

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2013

Abstract

Objective

The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) has been shown to have good psychometric performance in measuring headache impact in migraine patients, but its properties specifically in chronic migraine (CM) patients are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MSQ in a group of CM patients undergoing prophylactic treatment.

Methods

Measurement properties of the MSQ were examined using two international, multicenter, randomized clinical trials evaluating onabotulinumtoxinA as headache prophylaxis in CM patients (N = 1,376). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the latent structure of the MSQ in CM patients. The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness of the MSQ were assessed.

Results

CFA confirmed the currently proposed three-factor MSQ latent structure across the two studies. Good reliability was observed for all three MSQ scales, across studies and time points. MSQ scale scores strongly correlated with the scores of the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Analysis of known-groups validity indicated that MSQ scale scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in their 28-day headache frequency were as follows <10, 10–14, and ≥15 days, and the sample-derived quartiles of the total cumulative hours of headache were as follows <140, 140 to <280, 280 to <420, and ≥420 h (p < 0.0001), across both studies and time points. MSQ change scores were higher in magnitude in groups experiencing greater decline in headache frequency (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The MSQ is a psychometrically valid tool that can be used to reliably measure the impact of migraine among CM patients.

Dahlof, C. G. (2003). Measuring disability and quality of life in migraine. Drugs Today (Barcelona), 39(Suppl D), 17–23.

Dahlof, C. G., & Dimenas, E. (1995). Migraine patients experience poorer subjective well-being/quality of life even between attacks. Cephalalgia, 15(1), 31–36.PubMedCrossRef

Freitag, F. G. (2007). The cycle of migraine: Patients’ quality of life during and between migraine attacks. Clinical Therapy, 29(5), 939–949.CrossRef

Tfelt-Hansen, P., Block, G., Dahlof, C., Diener, H. C., Ferrari, M. D., Goadsby, P. J., et al. (2000). Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: Second edition. Cephalalgia, 20(9), 765–786.PubMedCrossRef

Silberstein, S., Tfelt-Hansen, P., Dodick, D. W., Limmroth, V., Lipton, R. B., Pascual, J., et al. (2008). Guidelines for controlled trials of prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia, 28(5), 484–495.PubMedCrossRef

Jhingran, P., Osterhaus, J. T., Miller, D. W., Lee, J. T., & Kirchdoerfer, L. (1998). Development and validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Headache, 38(4), 295–302.PubMedCrossRef

Martin, B. C., Pathak, D. S., Sharfman, M. I., Adelman, J. U., Taylor, F., Kwong, W. J., et al. (2000). Validity and reliability of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ version 2.1). Headache, 40(3), 204–215.PubMedCrossRef

Jhingran, P., Davis, S. M., LaVange, L. M., Miller, D. W., & Helms, R. W. (1998). MSQ: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure 152. Pharmacoeconomics., 13(6), 707–717.PubMedCrossRef

Cole, J. C., Lin, P., & Rupnow, M. F. (2007). Validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v. 2.1) for patients undergoing prophylactic migraine treatment. Quality of Life Research, 16(7), 1231–1237.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Cole, J. C., Lin, P., & Rupnow, M. F. (2009). Minimal important differences in the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version. Cephalalgia, 29(11), 1180–1187.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bigal, M. E., Rapoport, A. M., Lipton, R. B., Tepper, S. J., & Sheftell, F. D. (2003). Assessment of migraine disability using the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: A comparison of chronic migraine with episodic migraine. Headache, 43(4), 336–342.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Guitera, V., Munoz, P., Castillo, J., & Pascual, J. (2002). Quality of life in chronic daily headache—a study in a general population. Neurology, 58(7), 1062–1065.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lovati, C., D’Amico, D., Bertora, P., Rosa, S., Suardelli, M., Mailland, E., et al. (2008). Acute and interictal allodynia in patients with different headache forms: An Italian pilot study. Headache, 48(2), 272–277.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Lovati, C., D’Amico, D., Rosa, S., Suardelli, M., Mailland, E., Bertora, P., et al. (2007). Allodynia in different forms of migraine. Neurological Sciences, 28(Suppl 2), S220–S221.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kitaj, M. B., & Klink, M. (2005). Pain thresholds in daily transformed migraine versus episodic migraine headache patients. Headache, 45(8), 992–998.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Bagley, C. L., Rendas-Baum, R., Maglinte, G. A., Yang, M., Varon, S. F., Lee, J., et al. (2011). Validating Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 in episodic and chronic migraine. Headache,. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.PubMed

17.

Adelman, J. U., Sharfman, M., Johnson, R., Miller, D., Clements, B., Pait, G., et al. (1996). Impact of oral sumatriptan on workplace productivity, health-related quality of life, healthcare use, and patient satisfaction with medication in nurses with migraine. The American Journal of Managed Care, 2(10), 1407–1416.

18.

Cohen, J. A., Beall, D. G., Miller, D. W., Beck, A., Pait, G., & Clements, B. D. (1996). Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: Humanistic, economic, and clinical consequences. Family Medicine, 28(3), 171–177.PubMed

19.

Jhingran, P., Cady, R. K., Rubino, J., Miller, D., Grice, R. B., & Gutterman, D. L. (1996). Improvements in health-related quality of life with sumatriptan treatment for migraine. Journal of Family Practice, 42(1), 36–42.PubMed

20.

Aurora, S. K., Dodick, D. W., Turkel, C. C., DeGryse, R. E., Silberstein, S. D., Lipton, R. B., et al. (2010). OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 1 trial. Cephalalgia, 30(7), 793–803.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Diener, H. C., Dodick, D. W., Aurora, S. K., Turkel, C. C., DeGryse, R. E., Lipton, R. B., et al. (2010). OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 2 trial. Cephalalgia, 30(7), 804–814.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. (2004). The international classification of headache disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia, 24(Suppl 1), 9–160.

23.

Dahlof, C., Bouchard, J., Cortelli, P., Heywood, J., Jansen, J. P., Pham, S., et al. (1997). A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. II: Health-related quality of life. Pharmacoeconomics., 11(Suppl 1), 24–34.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Martin, B. C., Pathak, D. S., Kwong, J., Batenhorst, A. S., & Sharfman, M. (2003). Assessment of the responsiveness of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (version 2.1). In J. Olesen, T. J. Steiner, & R. B. Lipton (Eds.), Reducing the burden of headache (pp. 116–120). New York: Oxford University Press.

25.

Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Bayliss, M. S., Batenhorst, A., Dahlof, C. G. H., et al. (2003). Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 935–952.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Kosinski, M., Bayliss, M. S., Bjorner, J. B., Ware, J. E., Jr, Garber, W. H., Batenhorst, A., et al. (2003). A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: The HIT-6. Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 963–974.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Bayliss, M., & Batenhorst, A. (2002). The HIT-6™ a user’s guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

28.

Muthen, L. D., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). MPlus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

29.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

30.

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

31.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., Rogers, W., & Reese, P. R. (1997). MAP-R for Windows: multitrait/multi-Item analysis program—revised user’s guide. Boston, MA: Health Assessment Lab.

33.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.CrossRef

34.

Kerlinger, F. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

35.

Lipton, R. B. (2009). Tracing transformation: Chronic migraine classification, progression, and epidemiology. Neurology, 72(5 Suppl), S3–S7.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Cohen, J. A. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.PubMedCrossRef

Title: The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients
Authors: Regina Rendas-Baum
Lisa M. Bloudek
Gregory A. Maglinte
Sepideh F. Varon
Publication date: 01-06-2013
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0230-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: are they complements or substitutes?

Measurement invariance of the SF-12 across European-American, Latina, and African-American postpartum women

Further evidence of reliability and validity of the Huntington’s disease quality of life battery for carers: Italian and French translations

Favorable effects of explanatory illustrations attached to a self-administered questionnaire for upper extremity disorders

The impact of second-line agents on patients’ health-related quality of life in the treatment for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

Discriminant and convergent validity of a subjective quality-of-life instrument aimed at high content validity for schizophrenic persons