• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

ZEG Berlin GmbH

Zentrum für Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsforschung

  • Home
  • Expertise
    • Real-World Evidence
    • Non-interventional study design
    • Post-authorization safety studies
    • Post-authorization efficacy studies
    • Cohort studies
    • Case-control studies
    • Medical Devices
    • Diagnostic tools
      • Research team
    • Data collection instruments
  • Services
    • RWE Services
    • Crisis Management
    • Consulting
    • Data Management and Biostatistics
    • Medical Writing
    • Study Management
    • Quality Assurance
    • Pharmacovigilance
  • Library & News
    • News/Conferences
    • Publications
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
      • Management Board
      • Executive Team
      • Project Management Team
    • History
    • Careers
    • Data Protection Information
  • Contact

Psychometric characteristics

Reliability is an important prerequisite for accepting the quality of a test.

This table below demonstrates the reliability of the AMS across countries and cultures (measured with Cronbach’s Alpha). The consistency coefficients varied between 0.6 and 0.9 across countries for the total score, as well the three subscales.

Cronbach´s alpha

In addition, the test-retest correlation coefficient (Pearson’s correlation) for the total score demonstrates high internal consistency. The test-retest coefficients of the total score was 0.9 for all countries combined.

Test Re-test

High correlation coefficients were also observed for the three domains across the regions studied. In the only Asian country we studied, Indonesia, the test-retest reliability is low (0.5). However, the assessments were based on small numbers, i.e., can be judged as preliminary information only 9, 10.

Altogether, the MRS passed all reliability tests with good results, i.e. certifying a good quality of measurement.

Evidence for validity is provided in a stepwise process.

Similar to reliability that assesses the consistency of measurement, the validity estimates if a QoL scale really measures what it intends to measure.

But whereas reliability can be determined straight forward with very few indicators, the validity is almost always a continuous process (construct validation). It is a process of accumulating evidence for a valid measurement of what is purposed.

There are various indicators for validity in the such as:

  • Internal structure of the scale
  • sub-score and total score correlations
  • criterion-oriented validity (correlation with other scales),
  • discriminative or prognostic validity

Internal structure of the MRS across countries

The first factorial analysis in 1996 was applied to identify the dimensions of the scale. Three dimensions of symptoms/complaints were identified 2: a psychological, a somato-vegetative, and a urogenital factor that explained 58.8% of the total variance.

A large, multinational survey in nine countries on four continents was analysed to answer the question: surprisingly similar factor loadings of the 11 items of the 3 domains of the MRS were observed (Table).

Structural Consistency

Similar results were seen for the individual countries of the respective regions. Although the prevalence of menopausal symptoms may slightly differ among regions/cultures (see later), the structure of complaints/symptoms seems similar. This suggests that the scale measures constantly the same phenomenon which speaks in favour of the translation/cultural adaptation of the scale.

However, there are also signals that the domains could be somewhat overlapping and not entirely independent as the statistical model promised.

The general agreement in the internal structure of the MRS scale across country groups, even accepting the possibility of slight differences in two items, suggests that the scale can very well be used in clinical studies in different countries, because intra-individual comparisons over time (before/after treatment) will be the main criterion which might not be affected by potential slight differences in the patient reported outcome structure.


2. Potthoff P, Heinemann LAJ, Schneider HPG, Rosemeier HP, Hauser GA. Menopause-Rating Skala (MRS): Methodische Standardisierung in der deutschen Bevölkerung. Zentralbl Gynakol 2000; 122:280-286.

9. Heinemann K, Assmann A, Möhner S, Schneider HPG, Heinemann LAJ. Reliabilität der Menopause-Rating-Skala (MRS). Untersuchung für die Deutsche Bevölkerung. Zentralbl Gynakol 2002; 124:161-163.

10. Schneider HPG, Heinemann LAJ, Rosemeier HP, Potthoff P, Behre HM. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): Reliability of scores of menopausal complaints. Climacteric 2000;3:59-64

sidebar

Menopause Rating Scale

  • About MRS
  • Languages
  • Development
  • Correlation with other scales
  • Psychometric characteristics
  • Population references values
  • Measuring outcomes using the MRS
  • Publications

To All Diagnostic Tools

sidebar-alt

Footer

ZEG Berlin

Berlin Center for Epidemiology and Health Research

Invalidenstraße 115
10115 Berlin
Germany

Contact Us

Services

  • Crisis Management
  • Consulting
  • Data Management and Biostatistics
  • Medical Writing
  • Study Management
  • Quality Assurance
  • Pharmacovigilance

ENCePP

We are a partner centre of the ENCePP scientific network which is coordinated by the European Medicines Agency. We are dedicated to excellence in research by adhering to the ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards and promoting scientific independence and transparency. We register studies in the ENCePP E-Register of Studies, a publicly accessible resource for the registration of pharmacoepidemiological and pharmacovigilance studies.

General Data Protection Regulation

With a view to the introduction of the GDPR/EUDSGVO we are glad to present our newupdated privacy policy . The updated description are stored under “about us” and then “privacy policy/GDPR”. Further translation for study participants will follow contemporary.

© 2011–2023 ZEG Berlin

Impressum

Website by Laura Yeffeth.