4.0 Article

Psychometric Properties of Activity, Self-Efficacy, and Quality-of-Life Measures in Individuals with Parkinson Disease

期刊

PHYSIOTHERAPY CANADA
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 47-57

出版社

UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
DOI: 10.3138/ptc.2009-08

关键词

outcome measures; Parkinson disease; reliability; validity

资金

  1. Royal University Hospital Foundation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To examine the psychometric properties of six outcome measures in people with Parkinson disease (PD). Method: Twenty-four participants completed the following twice within 2 weeks: the timed up-and-go test (TUG), Northwestern University Disability Scale (NUDS), Schwab & England ADL Scale (S&E), Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, PD Questionnaire-Short Form (PDQ 8), and Stanford Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale (SSE). Internal consistency, test-retest reliability (ICC[3,1]), and minimal detectable change (MDC) scores were calculated. Convergent and discriminant validity of the ABC were examined. Results: Cronbach's alpha scores for the NUDS, ABC, PDQ-8, and SSE were 0.47, 0.92, 0.72, and 0.91 respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC[3,1]) for the TUG was 0.69 and could be improved by averaging two trials. ICCs for the NUDS, S&E, ABC, PDQ-8, and SSE were 0.56, 0.70, 0.79, 0.82, and 0.72 respectively. The ABC correlated with the TUG (r = -0.44, p = 0.03) and with PDQ-8 (r(s) = 0.51, p = 0.01) and NUDS (r(s) = 0.48, p = 0.02) walking items. The ABC was able to discriminate between stages 1 and 3 of disease progression but not between stages 1 and 2, which suggests that the ABC can distinguish large differences in disease progression but cannot detect more subtle differences. Conclusions: Homogeneity of the ABC, PDQ-8, and SSE is good to excellent. Test retest reliability scores of all measures except the NUDS are moderate to good. The ABC is a valid measure for use in PD. The MDC statistic may be useful for interpreting group score changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据