Hypokinetic dysarthria is a common symptom in those with Parkinson’s disease (PD); there is currently no standardized or validated tool for assessing speech in this population. To translate into European Portuguese (EP) the FDA-2 and perform a cultural adaptation followed by an evaluation of its psychometric properties in PD in a sample of people with PD in different stages of disease progression. Translation, back-translation, experts’ analysis, pre-test and final version test were performed. The EP version of the FDA-2 was administered to 80 people with PD (PwP) with dysarthria, feasibility and acceptability, reliability (internal consistency and inter-rater reliability) and validity (face and convergent) were measured. Overall, the EP-FDA-2 proved to be similar to the original demonstrating the same conceptual meanings, semantics, idiomatic and score equivalences. It has good feasibility (missing data <5 %), acceptability (ceiling and floor effects <15 %), a high reliability of the total score (0.94), an excellent inter-rater agreement for the total score (0.96) and moderate to large construct validity for 81 % of its items. It is well correlated with the gold standard for disease severity assessment in PD, the MDS-UPDRS. The EP-FDA-2 has shown the salient features of a valid tool that can be used by speech and language therapists in the assessment of dysarthria in PD in clinical practice as in the research field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All human and animal studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefor been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Martinez-Martin P, Schapira AHV, Stocchi F et al (2007) Prevalence of nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease in an international setting; study using nonmotor symptoms questionnaire in 545 patients. Mov Disord 22:1623–1629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Perez-Lloret S, Nègre-Pagès L, Ojero-Senard A et al (2012) Oro-buccal symptoms (dysphagia, dysarthria, and sialorrhea) in patients with Parkinson’s disease: preliminary analysis from the French COPARK cohort. Eur J Neurol 19:28–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri K, Martinez-Martin P (2008) Quantitation of non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol 15:2–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Cersosimo MG, Benarroch EE (2008) Neural control of the gastrointestinal tract: implications for Parkinson disease. Mov Disord 23:1065–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR (1969) Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech, Lang Hear Res 12:246–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent RD (2000) Research on speech motor control and its disorders: a review and prospective. J Commun Disord 33:391–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Theodoros D, Russell TG, Hill A et al (2003) Assessment of motor speech disorders online: a pilot study. J Telemed Telecare 9:66–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaul R, Abbs JH, Caligiuri M et al (1988) Hypoglossal, trigeminal, and facial motoneuron involvement in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology 38:281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Farrell A, Theodoros D, Ward E et al (2005) Effects of neurosurgical management of Parkinson’s disease on speech characteristics and oromotor function. J Speech, Lang Hear Res 48:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association WM (2001) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 79:373Google Scholar
Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ (1992) Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 55:181–184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O et al (2004) Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations the Movement Disorder Society Task Force on rating scales for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 19:1020–1028CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 22:41–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Guerreiro M, Silva AP, Botelho MA et al (1994) Adaptação à população portuguesa da tradução do Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Rev Port Neurol 1:9–10Google Scholar
Soares T (2015) Tradução e validação da MDS-UPDRS para a língua portuguesa. University of LisbonGoogle Scholar
MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S (1999) Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods 4:84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrindell WA, Pickersgill MJ, Merckelbach H et al (1991) Phobic dimensions: III. Factor analytic approaches to the study of common phobic fears; an updated review of findings obtained with adult subjects. Adv Behav Res Ther 13:73–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A et al (2014) Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 12:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampaio C, Goetz CG, Schrag A (2012) Rating scales in Parkinson’s disease: clinical practice and research. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestana MH, Gageiro JN (2005) Análise de Dados para Ciências Sociais. 4a Edição. Lisboa, SílaboGoogle Scholar
Kent RD (1992) Intelligibility in speech disorders: theory, measurement, and management. John Benjamins Publishing, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar