4.7 Article

The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) in Parkinson's disease and correlations with formal measures of executive functioning

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 255, Issue 11, Pages 1756-1761

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-008-0024-6

Keywords

executive functions; Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB); Parkinson's disease; Portuguese norms

Funding

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) is a short tool for the assessment of executive functions consisting of six subtests that explore different abilities related to the frontal lobes. Several studies have indicated that executive dysfunction is the main neuropsychological feature in Parkinson's disease (PD). To evaluate the clinical usefulness of the FAB in identifying executive dysfunction in PD; to determine if FAB scores in PD are correlated with formal measures of executive functions; and to provide normative data for the Portuguese version of the FAB. The study involved 122 healthy participants and 50 idiopathic PD patients. We compared FAB scores in normal controls and in PD patients matched for age, education and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. In PD patients, FAB results were compared to the performance on tests of executive functioning. In the healthy subjects, FAB scores varied as a function of age, education and MMSE. In PD, FAB scores were significantly decreased compared to normal controls, and correlated with measures of executive functions such as phonemic and semantic verbal fluency tests, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Trail Making Test Part A and Part B. The FAB is a useful tool for the screening of executive dysfunction in PD, showing good discriminant and concurrent validities. Normative data provided for the Portuguese version of this test improve the accuracy and confidence in the clinical use of the FAB.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available