Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 22, 2026
A Method to Study the Impact of Chemically-induced Ovarian Failure on Exercise Capacity and Cardiac Adaptation in Mice
Published on: April 7, 2014
The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) scale: a methodological review
Klaas Heinemann1, Alexander Ruebig, Peter Potthoff
1Center for Epidemiology & Health Research Berlin, Invalidenstr, 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany. klaas@zeg-berlin.de
Background:
This paper compiles data from different sources to get a first comprehensive picture of psychometric and other methodological characteristics of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) scale. The scale was designed and standardized as a self-administered scale to (a) to assess symptoms/complaints of aging women under different conditions, (b) to evaluate the severity of symptoms over time, and (c) to measure changes pre- and postmenopause replacement therapy. The scale became widespread used (available in 10 languages).
Method:
A large multinational survey (9 countries in 4 continents) from 2001/ 2002 is the basis for in depth analyses on reliability and validity of the MRS. Additional small convenience samples were used to get first impressions about test-retest reliability. The data were centrally analyzed. Data from a postmarketing HRT study were used to estimate discriminative validity.
Results:
Reliability measures (consistency and test-retest stability) were found to be good across countries, although the sample size for test-retest reliability was small.
Validity:
The internal structure of the MRS across countries was astonishingly similar to conclude that the scale really measures the same phenomenon in symptomatic women. The sub-scores and total score correlations were high (0.7-0.9) but lower among the sub-scales (0.5-0.7). This however suggests that the subscales are not fully independent. Norm values from different populations were presented showing that a direct comparison between Europe and North America is possible, but caution recommended with comparisons of data from Latin America and Indonesia. But this will not affect intra-individual comparisons within clinical trials. The comparison with the Kupperman Index showed sufficiently good correlations, illustrating an adept criterion-oriented validity. The same is true for the comparison with the generic quality-of-life scale SF-36 where also a sufficiently close association has been shown.
Conclusion:
The currently available methodological evidence points towards a high quality of the MRS scale to measure and to compare HRQoL of aging women in different regions and over time, it suggests a high reliability and high validity as far as the process of construct validation could be completed yet.
