Cross-sectional study demonstrates high reliability of the MFM32 in adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1, indicating utility despite ceiling effects.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of the Motor Function Measure 32 (MFM32) in adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). MFM32 is an instrument for evaluating function in neuromuscular diseases that have not been adequately assessed in DM1. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using video recording of the performance for evaluation of intra- and inter-rater reliability. SETTING: Data collection was performed at 5 different sites (3 neurologic departments, 1 rehabilitation center, 1 center for rare disorders) and in several of the participants' home. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 86 adults (N=86) with DM1. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The MFM32. The objective was to assess internal consistency, intra and inter-rater reliability, measurement error, convergent validity, and floor and ceiling effects of MFM32 in adults with DM1. We analyzed the total percentage score and the 3 domain scores: D1 (standing and transfers), D2 (axial, proximal motor function), and D3 (distal motor function). RESULTS: =0.86-0.99). SEM of the total percentage score was 1.59 for the intra-rater reliability and 1.66 for the inter-rater reliability. Minimal detectable change was 4.42 for the intra-rater reliability and 4.6 for the inter-rater reliability. Convergent validity was medium to high. There was a tendency for a ceiling effect on the total percentage score, as well as on some of the domain percentage scores. CONCLUSIONS: The MFM32 has a high internal consistency, intra- and inter- rater reliability, and convergent validity in adults with DM1. Calculated SEM and minimal detectable change were low. There is a ceiling effect of MFM32, especially in the distal function domain and among the participants with high motor function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fossmo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: