Methodological considerations of measuring disability in bipolar disorder: validity of the Multidimensional Scale of Independent Functioning

Authors

  • Stefanie Berns,

    1. The Center for Neuropsychiatric Outcome and Rehabilitation Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Sarah Uzelac,

    1. The Center for Neuropsychiatric Outcome and Rehabilitation Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, NY
    2. Division of Social Sciences, Mount Saint Mary College, Newburgh, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Cristina Gonzalez,

    1. The Center for Neuropsychiatric Outcome and Rehabilitation Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Judith Jaeger

    1. The Center for Neuropsychiatric Outcome and Rehabilitation Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, NY
    2. Psychiatry Department, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

  • The authors of this paper do not have any commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with this manuscript.

Stefanie Berns, PhD, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, 75-59 263rd St., Glen Oaks, NY 11004, USA. Fax: +1 718 347 4982;
e-mail: berns@lij.edu

Abstract

Objective:  Recent studies have highlighted the prevalence, severity and persistence of the disability associated with bipolar disorder (BPD). Reliable instruments are needed to support research into the factors associated with disability and treatment response. Contextual factors (e.g., availability of supported employment programs) can affect functionality, posing a challenge to such investigations. We present preliminary findings regarding the validity of the Multidimensional Scale of Independent Functioning (MSIF) in BPD. The MSIF provides discrete ratings of support separate from both role responsibility and performance quality in work, residential and educational environments. These distinctions allow the ‘correction’ for variability explained by contextual factors that allows the comparison of studies conducted in different environments and time.

Methods:  Participants with BPD were administered the MSIF, the Social Adjustment Scale II (SAS-II) and an interview recording objective data regarding work, school and residential activities as part of an ongoing longitudinal study of BPD disability.

Results:  Construct validity estimated using standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.76 (n = 58). MSIF global ratings were significantly lower (reflecting higher functionality) for subjects engaged in productive activity compared with participants who were not active (t = −3.6, p = 0.001) demonstrating external validity. Inter-rater reliability estimates ranged from 0.86 to 0.99 (n = 49). Significant, high correlations were demonstrated between comparable MSIF and SAS-II global ratings (criterion validity = 0.70–0.79) and low correlations were found between non-comparable ratings (discriminant validity = −0.07 to −0.35) (n = 14).

Conclusion:  We conclude that the MSIF is a valid and reliable instrument optimally designed for studying determinants of disability and treatment response in BPD.

Ancillary