Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2025
Measurements of Motor Function and Other Clinical Outcome Parameters in Ambulant Children with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Published on: January 12, 2019
Psychometric Characteristics of the Motor Function Measure in Neuromuscular Diseases: A Systematic Review1
Shams Ribault1,2, Pascal Rippert1,3, Minal Jain4
1Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Service de médecine physique et réadaptation pédiatrique, Bron cedex F-69677.
Background:
Recent pharmaceutical breakthroughs in neuromuscular diseases may considerably change the prognosis and natural history these diseases. The ability to measure clinically relevant outcomes such as motor function is critical for the assessment of therapeutics and the follow up of individuals. The Motor Function Measure (MFM) is a quantitative scale designed to measure motor function in adult and children with neuromuscular disease (NMD).
Objective:
The objective of this study is to assess the quality and level of evidence of the MFM's published measurement properties by completing a systematic review of the validation and responsiveness studies of the MFM20 (a 20-item version of MFM adapted for children 2 to 6 years of age) and the MFM32 (the original 32 item version), in all NMDs and in specific diseases.
Methods:
A search for MFM responsiveness and MFM validation studies was completed in February 2023 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The PRISMA guidelines and the COSMIN manual for systematic reviews were followed for databases searches, articles screening and selection, study quality and measurement properties evaluation.
Results:
49 studies were included in analysis. In studies including individuals with all NMDs, MFM's internal consistency, reliability, convergent validity, construct validity and responsiveness were rated as sufficient with a high quality of evidence. Structural validity was rated sufficient with a moderate quality of evidence In SMA in particular, MFM's reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity and responsiveness are sufficient with a high quality of evidence. More studies would be required to assess specific measurement properties in different diseases. MFM32's minimal clinically relevant difference has been defined between 2 and 6%.
Conclusion:
MFM's structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, convergent validity and responsiveness have been verified with moderate to high level of evidence.
