ArticleScientific reports2025
Investigation of the validity, reliability and psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Ottawa sitting scale in patients with Parkinson's disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Sleep Architecture in Individuals Aged 65 to 80 Years With and Without Mild Cognitive Impairment Using Multi-Channel Sleep Monitoring.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Turkish Version of the Exercise-Specific Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Construct validity of the Arabic version of the opinion relative to integration of student with disabilities scale.PloS one · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of Indonesian version of the digital screen exposure questionnaire (DSEQ) for young children.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Association Between Ischemic Stroke Patients' Illness Perception and Adherence to Rehabilitation Exercises: An Analysis of a Moderated Chain Mediation Model.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Ottawa Sitting Scale is a tool for the multidimensional assessment of sitting balance. This study aimed to investigate the validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Ottawa Sitting Scale (OSS-TR) in Turkish-speaking patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The study included 56 patients diagnosed with PD based on the UK Brain Bank Criteria. Construct validity of the OSS-TR was established through the evaluation of structural and convergent validity. Explanatory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were carried out to determine the structural validity. Convergent validity was analysed by examining the relationships between OSS-TR with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS). The test-retest reliability of the scale was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The good fit determined according to the model fit criteria based on the CFA results confirmed the structural validity. Furthermore, the high associations between OSS-TR with the BBS (r = 0.766) and TIS (r = 0.720) supported convergent validity (p < 0.05). Test-retest reliability of the OSS-TR was excellent (ICC = 0.867). Moreover, internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.948). The OSS-TR is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing sitting balance in Turkish-speaking PD patients. Regarding the results of the study, OSS-TR can be considered useful in the evaluation of sitting balance among PD patients 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.