Validity and reliability of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) in multiple sclerosis patients with ataxia

Yeliz Salcı, Ayla Fil, Hilal Keklicek, Barış Çetin, Kadriye Armutlu, Anıl Dolgun, Aslı Tuncer, Rana Karabudak

Ataxia is an extremely common problem in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Thus, appropriate scales are required for detailed assessment of this issue. The aim of our study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), which are widely used in ataxia evaluation in the context of other cerebellar diseases. This cross-sectional study included 80 MS patients with Kurtzke cerebellar functional system score (C-FSS) greater than zero and slight pyramidal involvement. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), C-FSS, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were administered. SARA and ICARS were assessed on first admission by two physical therapists. Seven days later, second assessments were repeated in same way for reliability. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were found to be high for both ICARS and SARA (p< 0.001) The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.922 and 0.921 for SARA (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 respectively) and 0.952 and 0.952 for ICARS (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively). There were no floor or ceiling effects determined for either scale except for item 17 of ICARS (p= 0.055). The EDSS total score had significant correlations with both SARA and ICARS (rho: 0.557 and 0.707, respectively). C-FSS had moderate correlation with SARA and high correlation with ICARS (rho: 0.469 and 0.653, respectively). BBS had no significant correlation with SARA and ICARS. (rho: -0.048 and -0.008 respectively). According to the area under the curve (AUC) value, ICARS is the best scale to discriminate mild and moderate ataxia. (AUC: 0.875). Factor analyses of ICARS showed that the rating results were determined by five different factors that did not coincide with the ICARS sub-scales. Our study demonstrated that ICARS and SARA are both reliable in MS patients with ataxia. Although ICARS has some structural problems, it seems to be more valid given its high correlations with EDSS and C-FSS. SARA also can be preferred as a brief assessment.