SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation / 2018 / Cilt: 64 - Sayı: 3

Turkish version of Parkinson Fatigue Scale: Validity and reliability study of binary scoring method

Erhan Arif ÖZTÜRK
Bilge Gönenli KOÇER
EBRU KARACA UMAY
Aytül ÇAKCI
Pages
253–260
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Althoughthe total binary score of the PFS was not associated with demographic and clinical data, it was significantly correlated with some of theclinical rating scale scores, including the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Schwab & England Activities of Daily Living Scale,Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index, 36-item Short Form Health Survey, 39-itemParkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, and Fatigue Severity Scale.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the PFS is an acceptable, valid, and reliable tool for the assessment of fatigue in PD patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS) into Turkish and toevaluate its reliability and validity.Patients and methods: Between September 2015 and May 2016, a total of 138 patients (84 males, 54 females; mean age 62.8±9.3 years; range,42 to 83 years) with Parkinson’s disease (PD) were included in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The scale provided anacceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.955 for a test and 0.941 for a retest, and corrected item-to-total correlations wereranged from 0.478 to 0.849.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Althoughthe total binary score of the PFS was not associated with demographic and clinical data, it was significantly correlated with some of theclinical rating scale scores, including the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Schwab & England Activities of Daily Living Scale,Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index, 36-item Short Form Health Survey, 39-itemParkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, and Fatigue Severity Scale.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the PFS is an acceptable, valid, and reliable tool for the assessment of fatigue in PD patients.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS) into Turkish and toevaluate its reliability and validity.Patients and methods: Between September 2015 and May 2016, a total of 138 patients (84 males, 54 females; mean age 62.8±9.3 years; range,42 to 83 years) with Parkinson’s disease (PD) were included in this study. The Turkish version of the PFS was analyzed for data quality, scalingassumptions, acceptability, reliability, and validity. We used the binary scoring method of the Parkinson Fatigue Scale.Results: The data quality for the Turkish version of the PFS was excellent. The scaling assumption was acceptable. The scale provided anacceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.955 for a test and 0.941 for a retest, and corrected item-to-total correlations wereranged from 0.478 to 0.849. The test-retest reliability (correlation coefficients were ranged from 0.650 to 0.875) was adequate. Althoughthe total binary score of the PFS was not associated with demographic and clinical data, it was significantly correlated with some of theclinical rating scale scores, including the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Schwab & England Activities of Daily Living Scale,Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index, 36-item Short Form Health Survey, 39-itemParkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, and Fatigue Severity Scale.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the PFS is an acceptable, valid, and reliable tool for the assessment of fatigue in PD patients.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTÜRK, E. A., KOÇER, B. G., UMAY, E. K., ÇAKCI, A. (2018). Turkish version of Parkinson Fatigue Scale: Validity and reliability study of binary scoring method. Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, Cilt: 64 - Sayı: 3, 253–260. https://ajindex.com/articles/375213

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Pringsheim T, Jette N, Frolkis A, Steeves TD. The prevalence of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Mov Disord 2014;29:1583-90.
  2. Park A, Stacy M. Dopamine-induced nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsons Dis 2011;2011:485063. Kluger BM, Herlofson K, Chou KL, Lou JS, Goetz CG, Lang AE, et al. Parkinson’s disease-related fatigue: A case definition and recommendations for clinical research. Mov Disord 2016;31:625-31.
  3. Herlofson K, Kluger BM. Fatigue in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci 2017;374:38-41.
  4. Barone P, Antonini A, Colosimo C, Marconi R, Morgante L, Avarello TP, et al. The PRIAMO study: A multicenter assessment of nonmotor symptoms and their impact on quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2009;24:1641-9. Martinez-Martin P. Instruments for holistic assessment of Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 2013;120:559-64.
  5. Friedman JH, Alves G, Hagell P, Marinus J, Marsh L, Martinez-Martin P, et al. Fatigue rating scales critique and recommendations by the Movement Disorders Society task force on rating scales for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2010;25:805-22.
  6. Brown RG, Dittner A, Findley L, Wessely SC. The Parkinson fatigue scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2005;11:49-55.
  7. Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992;55:181-4.
  8. Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O, Sampaio C, Stebbins GT, Counsell C, et al. Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations. Mov Disord 2004;19:1020-8. Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson’s disease. 2003 The Unified. Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS): Status and Recommendations. Movement Disorders 2003;18:738-50.
  9. McRae C, Diem G, Vo A, O’Brien C, Seeberger L. Schwab & England: standardization of administration. Mov Disord 2000;15:335-6.
  10. Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Frades-Payo B, Forjaz MJ, de PedroCuesta J, Martinez-Martin P. Psychometric attributes of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2009;24:519-25.
  11. Paker N, Bugdayci D, Midik M, Celik B, Kesiktas N. Reliability of the Turkish version of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in the people with traumatic spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation 2013;33:337-41.
  12. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and