ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis of the German revised version of the Niigata PPPD questionnaire: NPQ-R.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness: a phenotype-oriented approach to practical management.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Persistent Postural-Perceptual Dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic functional vestibular disorder exacerbated by posture, movement, or visual stimuli. Widely used dizziness questionnaires lack specificity for PPPD symptoms. The Niigata PPPD Questionnaire (NPQ) and its German-translated and revised version (NPQ-R), including two additional subscales, were developed to address this gap. Its internal consistency, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability were found to be satisfactory. The aim of the present study was to examine the NPQ-R's structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch item analysis. Materials and methods: We analysed data from 265 (135 female) patients (50.2 ± 16.8 years, dizziness duration 46.3 ± 76.6 months) who completed the NPQ-R. CFA was conducted using the robust maximum likelihood estimator in R (lavaan), and Rasch item analysis was performed for each subscale separately. Results: CFA revealed moderate-to-high covariances between the five latent variables (range: 0.59-0.97), with all items except one demonstrating significant standardised loadings. Rasch analysis indicated acceptable item fit for most items. Person separation reliability ranged from 0.63 to 0.75 across subscales. Item 2 (Visual Stimulation) exhibited misfit. Discussion: The NPQ-R demonstrates promising psychometric properties. While the Rasch analyses support reliability and internal coherence, the CFA results suggest that the overall five-factor model may require refinement. Conceptual clarity and wording of specific items should be re-examined. However, the NPQ-R remains suitable for PPPD assessment and severity determination in clinical and research contexts, while theoretical and empirical refinement of its factor structure is recommended.
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.