Jennifer Zitser1, Chava Peretz2, Aya Ber David3, Herzl Shabtai3, Adi Ezra3, Meir Kestenbaum3, Marina Brozgol3, Alina Rosenberg2, Talia Herman3, Yakov Balash3, Avi Gadoth3, Avner Thaler4, Glenn T Stebbins5, Christopher G Goetz5, Barbara C Tilley6, Sheng T Luo6, Yuanyuan Liu6, Nir Giladi7, Tanya Gurevich7. 1. Movement Disorders Unit, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: jenny.zitser@gmail.com. 2. School of Public Health, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 3. Movement Disorders Unit, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 4. Movement Disorders Unit, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 5. Department of Neurological Services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Movement Disorders Unit, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel; Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Movement Disorders Society (MDS) published the English new Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) as the official benchmark scale for Parkinson's disease (PD) in 2008. We aimed to validate the Hebrew version of the MDS-UPDRS, explore its dimensionality and compare it to the original English one. METHODS: The MDS-UPDRS questionnaire was translated to Hebrew and was tested on 389 patients with PD, treated at the Movement Disorders Unit at Tel-Aviv Medical Center. The MDS-UPDRS is made up of four sections. The higher the score, the worst the clinical situation of the patient is. Confirmatory and explanatory factor analysis were applied to determine if the factor structure of the English version could be confirmed in the Hebrew version. RESULTS: The Hebrew version of the MDS-UPDRS showed satisfactory clinimetric properties. The internal consistency of the Hebrew-version was satisfactory, with Cronbach's alpha values 0.79, 0.90, 0.93, 0.80, for parts 1 to 4 respectively. In the confirmatory factor analysis, all four parts had high (greater than 0.90) comparative fit index (CFI) in comparison to the original English MDS-UPDRS with high factor structure (0.96, 0.99, 0.94, 1.00, respectively), thus confirming the pre-specified English factor structure. Explanatory factor analysis yielded that the Hebrew responses differed from the English one within an acceptable range: in isolated item differences in factor structure and in the findings of few items having cross loading on multiple factors. CONCLUSIONS: The Hebrew version of the MDS-UPDRS meets the requirements to be designated as the Official Hebrew Version of the MDS-UPDRS.
BACKGROUND: The Movement Disorders Society (MDS) published the English new Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) as the official benchmark scale for Parkinson's disease (PD) in 2008. We aimed to validate the Hebrew version of the MDS-UPDRS, explore its dimensionality and compare it to the original English one. METHODS: The MDS-UPDRS questionnaire was translated to Hebrew and was tested on 389 patients with PD, treated at the Movement Disorders Unit at Tel-Aviv Medical Center. The MDS-UPDRS is made up of four sections. The higher the score, the worst the clinical situation of the patient is. Confirmatory and explanatory factor analysis were applied to determine if the factor structure of the English version could be confirmed in the Hebrew version. RESULTS: The Hebrew version of the MDS-UPDRS showed satisfactory clinimetric properties. The internal consistency of the Hebrew-version was satisfactory, with Cronbach's alpha values 0.79, 0.90, 0.93, 0.80, for parts 1 to 4 respectively. In the confirmatory factor analysis, all four parts had high (greater than 0.90) comparative fit index (CFI) in comparison to the original English MDS-UPDRS with high factor structure (0.96, 0.99, 0.94, 1.00, respectively), thus confirming the pre-specified English factor structure. Explanatory factor analysis yielded that the Hebrew responses differed from the English one within an acceptable range: in isolated item differences in factor structure and in the findings of few items having cross loading on multiple factors. CONCLUSIONS: The Hebrew version of the MDS-UPDRS meets the requirements to be designated as the Official Hebrew Version of the MDS-UPDRS.
Authors: Pablo Martinez-Martin; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez; Mario Alvarez-Sanchez; Tomoko Arakaki; Alberto Bergareche-Yarza; Anabel Chade; Nelida Garretto; Oscar Gershanik; Monica M Kurtis; Juan Carlos Martinez-Castrillo; Amelia Mendoza-Rodriguez; Henry P Moore; Mayela Rodriguez-Violante; Carlos Singer; Barbara C Tilley; Jing Huang; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-08-05 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Christopher G Goetz; Barbara C Tilley; Stephanie R Shaftman; Glenn T Stebbins; Stanley Fahn; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Werner Poewe; Cristina Sampaio; Matthew B Stern; Richard Dodel; Bruno Dubois; Robert Holloway; Joseph Jankovic; Jaime Kulisevsky; Anthony E Lang; Andrew Lees; Sue Leurgans; Peter A LeWitt; David Nyenhuis; C Warren Olanow; Olivier Rascol; Anette Schrag; Jeanne A Teresi; Jacobus J van Hilten; Nancy LaPelle Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Christopher G Goetz; Stanley Fahn; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Werner Poewe; Cristina Sampaio; Glenn T Stebbins; Matthew B Stern; Barbara C Tilley; Richard Dodel; Bruno Dubois; Robert Holloway; Joseph Jankovic; Jaime Kulisevsky; Anthony E Lang; Andrew Lees; Sue Leurgans; Peter A LeWitt; David Nyenhuis; C Warren Olanow; Olivier Rascol; Anette Schrag; Jeanne A Teresi; Jacobus J Van Hilten; Nancy LaPelle Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Jinse Park; Seong Beom Koh; Kyum Yil Kwon; Sang Jin Kim; Jae Woo Kim; Joong Seok Kim; Kun Woo Park; Jong Sam Paik; Young H Sohn; Jin Young Ahn; Eungseok Oh; Jinyoung Youn; Ji Young Lee; Phil Hyu Lee; Wooyoung Jang; Han Joon Kim; Beom Seok Jeon; Sun Ju Chung; Jin Whan Cho; Sang Myung Cheon; Suk Yun Kang; Mee Young Park; Seongho Park; Young Eun Huh; Seok Jae Kang; Hee Tae Kim Journal: J Clin Neurol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.077