Background and purpose A composite instrument able to rapidly and reliably assess the most relevant motor and non-motor afflictions suffered by Parkinson's disease (PD) patients in a real world clinic setting is an unmet need. The recently validated PD Composite Scale (PDCS) was designed to fulfil this gap as a quick, comprehensive PD assessment. The objective of this study was extensive evaluation of the PDCS's clinimetric properties using a large international sample. Methods This was a cross-sectional study in which the PDCS, the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and the Clinical Impression of Severity Index for PD were applied. Basic clinimetric attributes of the PDCS were analysed. Results In total, 776 PD patients were included. The PDCS total score showed negligible floor and ceiling effects. Three factors (54.5% of the variance) were identified: factor 1 included motor impairment, fluctuations and disability; factor 2, non-motor symptoms; and factor 3, tremor and complications of therapy. Cronbach's alpha was from 0.66 to 0.79. Inter-rater reliability showed weighted kappa values from 0.79 to 0.98 for items and intraclass correlation coefficient values from 0.95 (Disability) to 0.99 (Motor and total score). The Bland-Altmann method, however, showed irregular concordance. PDCS standard error of measurement and convergent validity with equivalent constructs of other measures were satisfactory (>= 0.70). PDCS scores significantly differed by Hoehn and Yahr stage. Conclusion Overall, in line with previous findings, the PDCS is a feasible, acceptable, valid, reliable and precise instrument for quickly and comprehensively assessing PD patients.

Extensive validation study of the Parkinson's Disease Composite Scale

Stocchi, F
2019-01-01

Abstract

Background and purpose A composite instrument able to rapidly and reliably assess the most relevant motor and non-motor afflictions suffered by Parkinson's disease (PD) patients in a real world clinic setting is an unmet need. The recently validated PD Composite Scale (PDCS) was designed to fulfil this gap as a quick, comprehensive PD assessment. The objective of this study was extensive evaluation of the PDCS's clinimetric properties using a large international sample. Methods This was a cross-sectional study in which the PDCS, the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and the Clinical Impression of Severity Index for PD were applied. Basic clinimetric attributes of the PDCS were analysed. Results In total, 776 PD patients were included. The PDCS total score showed negligible floor and ceiling effects. Three factors (54.5% of the variance) were identified: factor 1 included motor impairment, fluctuations and disability; factor 2, non-motor symptoms; and factor 3, tremor and complications of therapy. Cronbach's alpha was from 0.66 to 0.79. Inter-rater reliability showed weighted kappa values from 0.79 to 0.98 for items and intraclass correlation coefficient values from 0.95 (Disability) to 0.99 (Motor and total score). The Bland-Altmann method, however, showed irregular concordance. PDCS standard error of measurement and convergent validity with equivalent constructs of other measures were satisfactory (>= 0.70). PDCS scores significantly differed by Hoehn and Yahr stage. Conclusion Overall, in line with previous findings, the PDCS is a feasible, acceptable, valid, reliable and precise instrument for quickly and comprehensively assessing PD patients.
2019
Parkinson's Disease Composite Scale
Parkinson's disease
dimensionality
inter-rater reliability
validation
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12078/15907
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact