Neurological Sciences

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 831–838 | Cite as

Validation of a home environment test battery for supporting assessments in advanced Parkinson’s disease

  • Jerker WestinEmail author
  • Mauro Schiavella
  • Mevludin Memedi
  • Dag Nyholm
  • Mark Dougherty
  • Angelo Antonini
Original Article


Test sequences in a test battery for Parkinson’s disease patients, consisting of self-assessments and motor tests, were carried out repeatedly in a telemedicine setting, during week-long test periods and results were summarized in an ‘overall score’. 35 patients in stable and fluctuating conditions (15 age- and gender-matched pairs) used the test battery for 1 week, and were then assessed with UPDRS and PDQ-39. This procedure was repeated 1 week later, without treatment changes. Reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity was assessed by Spearman rank correlations and known-groups’ validity, by the Mann–Whitney test. According to anonymous usability questionnaires, the patients could easily complete the tasks. Median compliance (93%) and test–retest reliability (0.88) were good. The correlations between overall score and total UPDRS (−0.64) and PDQ-39 (−0.72) were adequate. Median overall score was 18% better in the stable compared to the fluctuating group (p = 0.0014).


Parkinson’s disease Motor fluctuations Telemedicine Self-assessment Motor tests Validity 



This work was performed in the framework of the MOVISTAR project, funded by the Swedish Knowledge Foundation, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Allschwil, Switzerland, Nordforce Technology, Stockholm Sweden and the authors’ respective institutions. Authors Westin, Nyholm and Dougherty have filed a patent application and started a company for supplying the test battery described in this article.


  1. 1.
    Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR (2003) Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials 24(2):182–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nyholm D, Kowalski J, Aquilonius SM (2004) Wireless real-time electronic data capture for self-assessment of motor function and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 19(4):446–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montgomery GK, Reynolds NC Jr (1990) Compliance, reliability, and validity of self-monitoring for physical disturbances of Parkinson’s disease. The Parkinson’s symptom diary. J Nerv Ment Dis 178:636–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nutt JG, Lea ES, Van Houten L, Schuff RA, Sexton GJ (2000) Determinants of tapping speed in normal control subjects and subjects with Parkinson’s disease: differing effects of brief and continued practice. Mov Disord 15(5):843–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams LM, Simms E, Clark CR, Paul RH, Rowe D, Gordon E (2005) The test–retest reliability of a standardized neurocognitive and neurophysiological test battery: “neuromarker”. Int J Neurosci 115(12):1605–1630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goetz CG, Stebbins GT, Wolff D, Deleeuw W, Bronte-Stewart H, Elble R et al (2008) Testing objective measures of motor impairment in early Parkinson’s disease: feasibility study of an at-home testing device. Mov Disord 24(4):549–554Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu X, Carroll CB, Wang SY, Zajicek J, Bain PG (2005) Quantifying drug-induced dyskinesias in the arms using digitised spiral-drawing tasks. J Neurosci Methods 144(1):47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rudzinska M, Izworski A, Banaszkiewicz K, Bukowczan S, Marona M, Szczudlik A (2007) Quantitative tremor measurement with the computerized analysis of spiral drawing. Neurol Neurochir Pol 41(6):510–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aly NM, Playfer JR, Smith SL, Halliday DM (2007) A novel computer-based technique for the assessment of tremor in Parkinson’s disease. Age Ageing 36(4):395–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saunders-Pullman R, Derby C, Stanley K, Floyd A, Bressman S, Lipton RB et al (2008) Validity of spiral analysis in early Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 23(4):531–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Banaszkiewicz K, Rudzińska M, Bukowczan S, Izworski A, Szczudlik A (2009) Spiral drawing time as a measure of bradykinesia. Neurol Neurochir Pol 43(1):16–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westin J, Dougherty M, Nyholm D, Groth T (2010) A home environment test battery for status assessment in patients with motor fluctuations. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 98(1):27–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahn S, Elton RL, Members of the UPDRS Development Committee (1987) Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Goldstein M, Calne CD (eds) Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease, vol 11. MacMillan, New York, pp 153–163Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N (1997) The PDQ-39: development of a Parkinson’s disease summary index score. Age Ageing 26:353–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hauser RA, Deckers F, Lehert P (2004) Parkinson’s disease home diary: further validation and implications for clinical trials. Mov Disord 19(12):1409–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Measso G, Cavarzeran F, Zappalà G, Lebowitz BD et al (1993) The Mini-Mental State Examination: normative study of an Italian random sample. Dev Neuropsychol 9(2):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing Inc, ArlingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwab RS, England AC Jr (1969) Projection techniques for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease. In: Third symposium on Parkinson’s disease, Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, 20–22 May 1968, E. & S. Livingstone Ltd, pp 152–157 (Table 1, page 153)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montgomery SA, Asberg M (1979) A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 134:382–389. doi: 10.1192/bjp.134.4.382 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nyholm D, Nilsson AI, Remahl N, Dizdar R, Constantinescu B, Holmberg R et al (2005) Duodenal levodopa infusion monotherapy vs. oral polypharmacy in advanced Parkinson disease. Neurology 64(2):216–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westin J, Ghiamati S, Memedi M, Nyholm D, Johansson A, Dougherty M, Groth T (2010) A new computer method for assessing drawing impairment in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosci Methods 190(1):143–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McIver JP, Carmines EG (1981) Unidimensional scaling. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-024. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:1–55Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewis JR (1995) IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 7(1):57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Isacson D, Bingefors K, Kristiansen IS, Nyholm D (2008) Fluctuating functions related to quality of life in advanced Parkinson disease: effects of duodenal levodopa infusion. Acta Neurol Scand 118(6):379–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westin J, Nyholm D, Johansson A, Memedi M, Dougherty M, Groth T, Pålhagen S (2010) 12-month results from a novel test battery used in a duodenal levodopa infusion trial. Eur J Neurol 17(Suppl 3):21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerker Westin
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Mauro Schiavella
    • 2
  • Mevludin Memedi
    • 1
  • Dag Nyholm
    • 3
  • Mark Dougherty
    • 1
  • Angelo Antonini
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Academy of Industry and Society, Computer ScienceDalarna UniversityBorlängeSweden
  2. 2.Parkinson Institute, Istituti Clinici di PerfezionamentoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Neuroscience, NeurologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Medical Sciences, Biomedical Informatics and EngineeringUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.Department for Parkinson’s diseaseIRCCS San CamilloVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations