Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 260, Issue 8, pp 1970–1977 | Cite as

Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Self-Assessment Disability Scale in patients with Parkinson’s disease in Serbia

  • Tatjana Gazibara
  • Iva Stankovic
  • Aleksandra Tomic
  • Marina Svetel
  • Darija Kisic Tepavcevic
  • Vladimir S. Kostic
  • Tatjana Pekmezovic
Original Communication

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Self-Assessment Disability Scale Parkinson’s disease Validation Reliability Serbia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Singer C (2012) Managing the patient with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease. Cleve Clin J Med 9(Suppl 2):S3–S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wade DT (1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Hamilton M (1967) Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 6:278–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamilton M (1959) The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 32:50–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guillemin F (1995) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol 24:61–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Cronbach’s alpha. Br Med J 317:572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Fuwa M (2004) Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. Am Sociol Rev 69(6):751–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Doucet A (1995) Gender equality and gender differences in household work and parenting. Wom Stud Int Forum 18(3):271–284Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popović K (2007) Adult education and gender issues in Serbia. European infonet adult education. Available at: http://www.infonet-ae.eu/sw/articles/adult-education-and-gender-issues-in-serbia-0236
  23. 23.
    Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Ziemssen T, Reichmann H (2007) Non-motor dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Park Relat Disord 13(6):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatjana Gazibara
    • 1
  • Iva Stankovic
    • 2
  • Aleksandra Tomic
    • 2
  • Marina Svetel
    • 2
  • Darija Kisic Tepavcevic
    • 1
  • Vladimir S. Kostic
    • 2
  • Tatjana Pekmezovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Epidemiology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine, Clinic of Neurology, Clinical Centre of SerbiaUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations