ArticleBasic and clinical neuroscience
Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Penn Parkinson Daily Activities Questionnaire-15.
Article in Basic and clinical neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Appropriate information about the ability of patients with Parkinson disease (PD) to perform cognitive instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is necessary. The present study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Penn Parkinson daily activities questionnaire-15 (PDAQ-15). Methods: A total of 165 knowledgeable informants of PD patients completed the PDAQ-15. The clinical dementia rating scale, Hoehn and Yahr staging, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and Lawton IADL scale were used in the study. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated by the Cronbach α coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. To examine the dimensionality of the questionnaire, exploratory factor analysis was used. The construct validity was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation test. To assess the discriminative validity, PDAQ-15 scores were compared across cognitive stages. Results: The PDAQ-15 showed strong internal consistency (the Cronbach α=0.99) and test-retest reliability (ICC= 0.99). Only one dimension was identified for the PDAQ-15 in the factor analysis. There was a strong correlation between PDAQ-15 with the depression domain of the HADS scale and the Lawton IADL scale (rs=|0.71-0.95|). The correlation of PDAQ-15 with the anxiety domain of the HADS scale was moderate (rs=0.66). Discriminative validity analysis showed that the PDAQ-15 has significant power to discriminate between PD patients across cognitive stages. Conclusion: These results suggest that the PDAQ-15 is a valid and reliable PD-specific instrument and can be useful in clinical and research settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.