BACKGROUND: One important outcome in clinical trials is patients' own opinions about whether the medication alleviates their symptoms and improves their ability to function. A valid and reliable method with which to assess this subjective information is important. OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and test-retest reliability of the Columbia University Disability Questionnaire for Essential Tremor (ET). METHODS: Patients with ET underwent a 2.5-hour evaluation, including a 36-item tremor disability questionnaire, to assess the functional impact of tremor, a 26-item videotaped tremor examination rated by a neurologist, a 15-item performance-based test, and quantitative computerized tremor analysis. We determined the validity and test-retest reliability of the tremor disability questionnaire. Correlations between variables were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients and test-retest reliability with the weighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with ET participated. The score on tremor disability questionnaire correlated with the neurologist's clinical ratings (r = 0.57, p <0.001) and the total score on the performance-based test (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). Correlations with quantitative computerized tremor analysis results were less robust, but each remained significant, including mean amplitude of dominant arm tremor while arms were extended (r = 0.56, p <0.001), while drawing a spiral (r = 0.42, p = 0.01), and while pouring (r = 0.34, p = 0.04). The questionnaire was readministered to 32 subjects, and the test-retest reliability was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: This Tremor Disability Questionnaire demonstrated substantial reliability, and it correlated with multiple measures of tremor severity, including a neurologist's clinical ratings, a performance-based test of function, and quantitative computerized tremor analysis results. The questionnaire would be useful in clinical trials in which it could be used as a reliable and valid tool to assess disability in ET.
BACKGROUND: One important outcome in clinical trials is patients' own opinions about whether the medication alleviates their symptoms and improves their ability to function. A valid and reliable method with which to assess this subjective information is important. OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and test-retest reliability of the Columbia University Disability Questionnaire for Essential Tremor (ET). METHODS:Patients with ET underwent a 2.5-hour evaluation, including a 36-item tremor disability questionnaire, to assess the functional impact of tremor, a 26-item videotaped tremor examination rated by a neurologist, a 15-item performance-based test, and quantitative computerized tremor analysis. We determined the validity and test-retest reliability of the tremor disability questionnaire. Correlations between variables were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients and test-retest reliability with the weighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with ET participated. The score on tremor disability questionnaire correlated with the neurologist's clinical ratings (r = 0.57, p <0.001) and the total score on the performance-based test (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). Correlations with quantitative computerized tremor analysis results were less robust, but each remained significant, including mean amplitude of dominant arm tremor while arms were extended (r = 0.56, p <0.001), while drawing a spiral (r = 0.42, p = 0.01), and while pouring (r = 0.34, p = 0.04). The questionnaire was readministered to 32 subjects, and the test-retest reliability was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: This Tremor Disability Questionnaire demonstrated substantial reliability, and it correlated with multiple measures of tremor severity, including a neurologist's clinical ratings, a performance-based test of function, and quantitative computerized tremor analysis results. The questionnaire would be useful in clinical trials in which it could be used as a reliable and valid tool to assess disability in ET.
Authors: M G Longstaff; P R Mahant; M A Stacy; A W A Van Gemmert; B C Leis; G E Stelmach Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Edward D Huey; Stephanie Cosentino; Silvia Chapman; Martina Azar; Brittany Rohl; Kathleen Collins; Sarah Morgan; Xinhua Liu; Elan D Louis Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Rodger Elble; Cynthia Comella; Stanley Fahn; Mark Hallett; Joseph Jankovic; Jorge L Juncos; Peter Lewitt; Kelly Lyons; William Ondo; Rajesh Pahwa; Kapil Sethi; Natividad Stover; Daniel Tarsy; Claudia Testa; Ron Tintner; Ray Watts; Theresa Zesiewicz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 10.338