Validation of the Slovak version of the Movement Disorder Society – Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‑ UPDRS)
M. Škorvánek 1,2; Z. Košutzká 3; P. Valkovič 3,4; R. Ghorbani Saeedian 2; Z. Gdovinová 1; N. Lapelle 5; J. Huang 6; B. C. Tilley 6; G. T. Stebbins 7; C. G. Goetz 7
Authors‘ workplace: Neurologická klinika LF UPJŠ a UN L. Pasteura Košice 1; Kosice Institute of Society and Health, LF UPJŠ v Košiciach 2; II. neurologická klinika LF UK a UNBratislava, Nemocnica akad. L. Dérera 3; Laboratórium regulácie motoriky, Ústav normálnej a patologickej fyziológie SAV, Bratislava 4; University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA 5; University of Texas, School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA 6; Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA 7
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2013; 76/109(4): 463-468
Category: Original Paper
Following its critique, recommendations for revision of the original version of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) were published. Subsequently, the Movement Disorder Society (MDS) – sponsored revision entitled Movement Disorder Society – Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) was presented. After its successful clinimetric testing, a programme for translation and validation of non-English versions of the MDS-UPDRS was initiated. The aim of this study was to validate and confirm the factor structure of the Slovak translation of the MDS-UPDRS. We examined 354 patients with Parkinson’s disease in all Hoehn and Yahr stages with the Slovak version of the MDS-UPDRS. The mean age of our sample was 68 ± 9.5 years and the mean disease duration was 6.7 ± 5.1 years. Slovak data were compared using confirmatory factor analysis with the original English language data. The pre-specified criterion for approving the Slovak translation as an official version of the MDS-UPDRS was the comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90 for all four parts of the Slovak MDS-UPDRS. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to explore the underlying factor structure without the constraints of a pre-specified factor structure. When compared to the English-language factor structure, the CFI for all four parts of the Slovak MDS-UPDRS was 0.91 or greater. Isolated differences in factor structure of the Slovak MDS-UPDRS compared to the English version were identified by exploratory factor analysis. The Slovak version of the MDS-UPDRS was accredited as the sixth official non-English translation of the MDS-UPDRS and can be downloaded from the Movement Disorder Society’s website (http://www.movementdisorders.org/publications/rating_scales/), along with training materials using the Slovak translation. In this paper, we also present the major changes and advantages of the Slovak MDS-UPDRS compared with the original UPDRS.
rating scales – validation – factor analysis
1. Fahn S, Elton RL. Members of the UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB, Lieberman A(eds). Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease. 2nd ed. Florham Park (NJ): Macmillan Healthcare Information 1987: 153– 163.
2. Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson‘s Disease. The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS): status and recommendations. Mov Disord 2003; 18(7): 738– 750.
3. Goetz CG, Fahn S, Martinez‑ Martin P, Poewe W, Sampaio C, Stebbins GT et al. Movement Disorder Society‑ sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson‘s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‑ UPDRS): Process, format, and clinimetric testing plan. Mov Disord 2007; 22(1): 41– 47.
4. Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez‑ Martin P et al. Movement Disorder Society‑ sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson‘s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‑ UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord 2008; 23(15): 2129– 2170.
5. Fowler FJ. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Applied Social Research Methods Series: 38. Thousand Oaks: Sage 1995.
6. Hatcher L. Step‑ by‑ step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Cary (NC): SAS Inst 1994.
7. Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associations Inc 1983.
8. Martinez‑ Martin P, Rodriguez‑ Blazquez C, Alvarez‑ Sanchez M, Arakaki T, Bergareche‑ Yarza A, Chade A et al. Expanded and independent validation of the Movement Disorder Society‑ Uniﬁed Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‑ UPDRS). J Neurol 2013; 260(1): 228– 236.
9. Goetz CG, Stebbins GT, Chmura TA, Fahn S, Poewe W, Tanner CM. Teaching program for the Movement Disorder Society‑ sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson‘s Disease Rating Scale: (MDS‑ UPDRS).Mov Disord 2010; 25(9): 1190– 1194.
10. Goetz CG, Stebbins G, Tilley BC. Calibration of unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale to Movement Disorder Society‑ unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. Mov Disord 2012; 27(10): 1239– 1242.
11. Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset progression and mortality. Neurology 1967; 17(5): 427– 442.
LabelsPaediatric neurology Neurosurgery Neurology
Article was published in
Czech and Slovak Neurology and Neurosurgery
2013 Issue 4
Most read in this issue
- Skull Base Surgery
- Difficulties Diagnosing Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy in Patients Infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus – Case Reports
- Neuropsychiatric View of Huntington‘s Disease
- Validation of the Slovak version of the Movement Disorder Society – Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‑ UPDRS)