hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Is the activities of daily living (ADL) section of the unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale valid for measuring ADL in Parkinson's disease?
Kristianstad University, Faculty of Health Science, Research Environment PRO-CARE, Patient Reported Outcomes - Clinical Assessment Research and Education. Kristianstad University, Research Platform for Collaboration for Health. Kristianstad University, Faculty of Health Science, Avdelningen för sjuksköterskeutbildningarna och integrerad hälsovetenskap.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2174-372X
2017 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor as well as non-motor symptoms. While available symptomatic therapy is effective, PD is associated with increasing disability and limitations in performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Maintaining and improving activity performance is therefore a major goal in available symptomatic therapy. The most commonly used rating scale for quantification of ADL outcomes is the ADL section (part II) of the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS). However, the UPDRS II does not only include activity but also impairment items. The consequences of this does not appear to have been addressed from a measurement perspective. This paper describes results from Rasch Measurement Theory analyses of complete UPDRS II (full scale, Activity and Impairment) data (n=675-687). Results show poor fit of the full UPDRS II with, e.g., disordered response thresholds, significant misfit and DIF (reliability, 0.82). The 6 Activity items showed no disordered thresholds, significant misfit or DIF (reliability, 0.86), whereas Impairment items did (reliability, 0.51). In conclusion, dividing the UPDRS II into two scales improves ADL measurement, but alternative approaches are needed and the UPDRS II cannot be recommended for measuring ADL in PD as it may yield misleading outcomes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017.
National Category
Health Sciences Neurology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-18464OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-18464DiVA, id: diva2:1237932
Conference
The 5th International Outcome Measurement Conference. Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2017
Available from: 2018-08-10 Created: 2018-08-10 Last updated: 2018-08-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagell, Peter
By organisation
Research Environment PRO-CARE, Patient Reported Outcomes - Clinical Assessment Research and EducationResearch Platform for Collaboration for HealthAvdelningen för sjuksköterskeutbildningarna och integrerad hälsovetenskap
Health SciencesNeurology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 66 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf