The symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) worsen over time affecting performance and causing disability. The purpose of this study was to translate the Self-Assessment Disability Scale in patients with Parkinson's disease (SADS-PD) into the Serbian language and assess its validity and reliability. From January to July 2012, 114 consecutive PD patients were recruited at the Neurology Clinic in Belgrade. The inclusion criteria were: ability to walk independently for at least 10 m, ability to stand for at least 90 s. The exclusion criteria were: cognitive impairment, the presence of other major neurologic, psychiatric, visual, audio-vestibular, and orthopedic disturbances. The 25-item SADS-PD was translated according to internationally-accepted methodology. The internal consistency of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Test–retest reliability was evaluated using Kendall’s concordance coefficient for total scores. To evaluate construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis, varimax rotation) was performed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.984. Kendall’s concordance coefficient was 0.994. Duration of the disease, Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) stage, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score, history of falls, Hamilton’s Depression and Anxiety Rating Scales (HDRS and HARS) scores were significantly correlated with the total SADS-PD score. On factor analysis 25 items in the SADS-PD questionnaire were separated in two clusters with total matrix variance of 79.7 %. The psychometric properties of the cross-culturally adapted SADS-PD questionnaire (Serbian version) have outstanding validity and reliability as an instrument for evaluation of the extent of disability in patients with PD.
Self-Assessment Disability Scale Parkinson’s disease Validation Reliability Serbia
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We sincerely appreciate Dr Richard G. Brown for allowing us to adapt the original version of the SADS-PD. The authors would like to thank Ivana Gligorijevic and Mitar Pljevaljcic for forward and backward translations of the SADS-PD as well as Professor Goran Trajkovic, for final statistical consultancy. This investigation was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia (Grants No 175087 and 175090).
Conflicts of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rodriguez-Oroz MC, Jahanshahi M, Krack P, Litvan I, Macias R, Bezard E, Obeso JA (2009) Initial clinical manifestations of Parkinson’s disease: features and pathophysiological mechanisms. Lancet Neurol 8:1128–1139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bello-Haas V, Klassen L, Sheppard MS, Metcalfe A (2011) Psychometric properties of activity, self-efficacy, and quality of life measures in individuals with Parkinson disease. Physiother Can 63(1):47–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer C (2012) Managing the patient with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease. Cleve Clin J Med 9(Suppl 2):S3–S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olanow CW, Stern MB, Sethi K (2009) The scientific and clinical basis for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 72(21 Suppl 4):S1–S136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz CG, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P et al (2007) Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): process, format, and clinimetric testing plan. Mov Disord 22(1):41–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade DT (1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Brown R, MacCarthey B, Jahanshai M, Marsden D (1989) Accuracy of self-reported disability in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol 46:955–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biemans MA, Dekker J, van der Woude LH (2001) The internal consistency and validity of the Self-Assessment Parkinson’s disease disability scale. Clin Rehabil 15(2):221–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kliford I, Lees AJ (1992) Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinicopathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 55:181–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) ‘Mini-Mental State’: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients with the clinician. J Psychiatr 12:189–198Google Scholar
Harrison MB, Wylie SA, Frysinger RC et al (2009) UPDRS activity of daily living score as a marker of Parkinson’s disease progression. Mov Disord 24:224–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampaio C (2009) Can focusing on UPDRS Part II make assessments of Parkinson disease progression more efficient? Nat Clin Pract Neurol 5(3):130–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein S, Feinstein R, Sabrow S (2010) Gender inequality in the division of household labour in Tanzania. Afr Sociol Rev 14(2):98–109Google Scholar
Fuwa M (2004) Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. Am Sociol Rev 69(6):751–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harryson L, Novo M, Hammarström A (2012) Is gender inequality in the domestic sphere associated with psychological distress among women and men? results from the Northern Swedish Cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 66(3):271–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doucet A (1995) Gender equality and gender differences in household work and parenting. Wom Stud Int Forum 18(3):271–284Google Scholar
Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 10(7):173–178Google Scholar
Spica V, Pekmezovic T, Svetel M, Kostic VS (2013) Prevalence of non-motor symptoms in young-onset versus late-onset Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 260(1):131–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri KR, Martinez-Martin P, Brown RG et al (2007) The metric properties of a novel non-motor symptoms scale for Parkinson’s disease: results from an international pilot study. Mov Disord 22:1901–1911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziemssen T, Reichmann H (2007) Non-motor dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Park Relat Disord 13(6):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar