View in EDS PDF Full Text

The validation of an Italian version of the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The validation of an Italian version of the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire.
Authors: Tambasco, Nicola, Simoni, Simone, Eusebi, Paolo, Ripandelli, Francesco, Brahimi, Elona, Sacchini, Elisa, Nigro, Pasquale, Marsili, Erica, Calabresi, Paolo
Source: Neurological Sciences. May2015, Vol. 36 Issue 5, p759-764. 6p.
Subjects: Gait disorders, Parkinson's disease, Brain diseases, Dyskinesias, Movement disorders
Abstract: Freezing of gait (FOG) is a common and disabling symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD) and its staging is complex because of its episodic nature. Patient-reported assessments are essential in evaluating this disabling symptom. The Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOG-Q) is considered a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of FOG severity. The aim of our study was to validate the Italian version of FOG-Q and to investigate for its association with several clinical aspects of PD. Fifty-one PD patients were administered the FOG-Q and the timed up and go test. Moreover, patients were evaluated for the unified PD rating scale (UPDRS), the Hoehn and Yahr Scale (H&Y) and the falls-efficacy scale [FES(S)]. Mean (SD) FOG-Q item scores ranged between 1.5 and 2.7 (1.0-1.4); corrected item-total correlations ranged between 0.63 and 0.86. The total FOG-Q score ranged between 0 and 24, with a mean + SD of 12.6 (6.2) and a median ( q1- q3) of 12 (9-17). Reliability was 0.91. FOG-Q correlated with H&Y (0.36, p = 0.0091), UPDRS part III (rS = 0.27, p = 0.054), PD duration (rS = 0.35, p < 0.01), FES(S) (rS = 0.58, p < 0.001) and the timed up and go test (rS = 0.51, p = 0.001). Non-significant positive correlations were observed for dyskinesia and motor fluctuations. Our study validates the Italian version of the FOG-Q, in that it results being a reliable instrument for assessing FOG in PD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Neurological Sciences is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Freezing of gait (FOG) is a common and disabling symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD) and its staging is complex because of its episodic nature. Patient-reported assessments are essential in evaluating this disabling symptom. The Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOG-Q) is considered a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of FOG severity. The aim of our study was to validate the Italian version of FOG-Q and to investigate for its association with several clinical aspects of PD. Fifty-one PD patients were administered the FOG-Q and the timed up and go test. Moreover, patients were evaluated for the unified PD rating scale (UPDRS), the Hoehn and Yahr Scale (H&Y) and the falls-efficacy scale [FES(S)]. Mean (SD) FOG-Q item scores ranged between 1.5 and 2.7 (1.0-1.4); corrected item-total correlations ranged between 0.63 and 0.86. The total FOG-Q score ranged between 0 and 24, with a mean + SD of 12.6 (6.2) and a median ( q1- q3) of 12 (9-17). Reliability was 0.91. FOG-Q correlated with H&Y (0.36, p = 0.0091), UPDRS part III (rS = 0.27, p = 0.054), PD duration (rS = 0.35, p < 0.01), FES(S) (rS = 0.58, p < 0.001) and the timed up and go test (rS = 0.51, p = 0.001). Non-significant positive correlations were observed for dyskinesia and motor fluctuations. Our study validates the Italian version of the FOG-Q, in that it results being a reliable instrument for assessing FOG in PD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:15901874
DOI:10.1007/s10072-014-2037-5