Journal of Neurology

, Volume 264, Issue 1, pp 21–31 | Cite as

Frenchay dysarthria assessment (FDA-2) in Parkinson’s disease: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the European Portuguese version

  • Rita Cardoso
  • Isabel Guimarães
  • Helena Santos
  • Rita Loureiro
  • Josefa Domingos
  • Daisy de Abreu
  • Nilza Gonçalves
  • Serge Pinto
  • Joaquim Ferreira
Original Communication

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Parkinson’s disease Dysarthria Scale Speech Parkinsonism 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Chaudhuri K, Martinez-Martin P (2008) Quantitation of non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol 15:2–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cersosimo MG, Benarroch EE (2008) Neural control of the gastrointestinal tract: implications for Parkinson disease. Mov Disord 23:1065–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR (1969) Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech, Lang Hear Res 12:246–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enderby P, Palmer R (1983) Frenchay dysarthria assessment, PRO-ED, Austin, CIT0007Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kent RD (2000) Research on speech motor control and its disorders: a review and prospective. J Commun Disord 33:391–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    DePaul R, Abbs JH, Caligiuri M et al (1988) Hypoglossal, trigeminal, and facial motoneuron involvement in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology 38:281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Enderby P (1980) Frenchay dysarthria assessment. Br J Disord Commun 15(3):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franic DM, Bramlett RE, Bothe AC (2005) Psychometric evaluation of disease specific quality of life instruments in voice disorders. J Voice 19:300–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nascimento MFB, Marques MLG, da Cruz MLS (1984) Português fundamentalGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Association WM (2001) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 79:373Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Soares T (2015) Tradução e validação da MDS-UPDRS para a língua portuguesa. University of LisbonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S (1999) Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods 4:84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Sampaio C, Goetz CG, Schrag A (2012) Rating scales in Parkinson’s disease: clinical practice and research. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pestana MH, Gageiro JN (2005) Análise de Dados para Ciências Sociais. 4a Edição. Lisboa, SílaboGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kent RD (1992) Intelligibility in speech disorders: theory, measurement, and management. John Benjamins Publishing, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Aarsland D, Kurz MW (2010) The epidemiology of dementia associated with Parkinson disease. J Neurol Sci 289:18–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2004) Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathologyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Santos KT, Fernandes MH, Reis LA et al (2012) Depressive symptoms and motor performance in the elderly: a population based study. Brazilian J Phys Ther 16:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita Cardoso
    • 1
    • 2
  • Isabel Guimarães
    • 1
    • 3
  • Helena Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rita Loureiro
    • 2
  • Josefa Domingos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daisy de Abreu
    • 1
  • Nilza Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Serge Pinto
    • 4
  • Joaquim Ferreira
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacological Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Campus Neurológico SéniorTorres VedrasPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Speech Therapy, Escola superior de Saúde de AlcoitãoEstorilPortugal
  4. 4.Aix-Marseille Université/CNRS, Laboratoire Parole et Language (LPL)Aix-en-ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations