4.4 Article

Validity and inter-rater reliability of the Lindop Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessment: a preliminary study

期刊

PHYSIOTHERAPY
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 126-133

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2009.02.003

关键词

Outcome measure; Parkinson's disease; Validity; Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess the validity and inter-rater reliability of the Lindop Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessment (LPA); a scale developed to gather objective information on gait and bed mobility in patients with Parkinson's disease. Design Two therapists scored a group of patients with Parkinson's disease using the motor examination section of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-ME) and the LPA scale. The association between scores obtained using the two scales was calculated, and the scores obtained by the therapists using each scale were compared. Setting A Parkinson's disease clinic in a day hospital in a district general hospital. Participants Forty-nine subjects with Parkinson's disease were recruited (33 males, 16 females, mean age 75.84 +/- 7.16 years). Results There was a significant association between the LPA and UPDRS-ME data for both raters (Rater A, rho -0.67; Rater B, rho -0.63; P < 0.001). The limits of agreement showed that the two raters scored within two scale points of each other on 95% of occasions, and that there was no systematic bias between raters. Percentage agreement between raters ranged from 82% to 100% for the LPA. The LPA took significantly less time to complete [mean 7.7 (standard deviation 2.9) minutes] than the UPDRS-ME [mean 10.5 (standard deviation 2.2) minutes; P < 0.001]. Conclusions The results suggest that the LPA is a valid measure with good inter-rater reliability. It is quick and easy to administer, and provides objective information about the gait and bed mobility of elderly patients with Parkinson's disease. (C) 2009 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据