Femke Hulzinga1, Alice Nieuwboer1, Bauke W Dijkstra1, Martina Mancini2, Carolien Strouwen3, Bastiaan R Bloem4, Pieter Ginis1. 1. KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Neurorehabilitation Research Group Leuven Belgium. 2. Department of Neurology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA. 3. UHasselt, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Rehabilitation Research Center Hasselt Belgium. 4. Radboud University Medical Centre, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Department of Neurology Centre of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders Nijmegen the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Freezing of gait (FOG) is a common gait deficit in Parkinson's disease. The New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (NFOG-Q) is a widely used and valid tool to quantify freezing of gait severity. However, its test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the NFOG-Q. METHODS: Two groups of freezers, involved in 2 previous rehabilitation trials, completed the NFOG-Q at 2 time points (T1 and T2), separated by a 6-week control period without active intervention. Sample 1 (N = 57) was measured in ON and sample 2 (N = 14) in OFF. We calculated various reliability statistics for the NFOG-Q scores between T1 and T2 as well as correlation coefficients with clinical descriptors to explain the variability between time points. RESULTS: In sample 1 the NFOG-Q showed modest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68 [0.52-0.80]) without differences between T1 and T2. However, a minimal detectable change of 9.95 (7.90-12.27) points emerged for the total score (range 28 points, relative minimal detectable change of 35.5%). Sample 2 showed largely similar results. We found no associations between cognitive-related or disease severity-related outcomes and variability in NFOG-Q scores. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the NFOG-Q is insufficiently reliable or responsive to detect small effect sizes, as changes need to go beyond 35% to surpass measurement error. Therefore, we warrant caution in using the NFOG-Q as a primary outcome in clinical trials. These results emphasize the need for robust and objective freezing of gait outcome measures.
BACKGROUND: Freezing of gait (FOG) is a common gait deficit in Parkinson's disease. The New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (NFOG-Q) is a widely used and valid tool to quantify freezing of gait severity. However, its test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the NFOG-Q. METHODS: Two groups of freezers, involved in 2 previous rehabilitation trials, completed the NFOG-Q at 2 time points (T1 and T2), separated by a 6-week control period without active intervention. Sample 1 (N = 57) was measured in ON and sample 2 (N = 14) in OFF. We calculated various reliability statistics for the NFOG-Q scores between T1 and T2 as well as correlation coefficients with clinical descriptors to explain the variability between time points. RESULTS: In sample 1 the NFOG-Q showed modest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68 [0.52-0.80]) without differences between T1 and T2. However, a minimal detectable change of 9.95 (7.90-12.27) points emerged for the total score (range 28 points, relative minimal detectable change of 35.5%). Sample 2 showed largely similar results. We found no associations between cognitive-related or disease severity-related outcomes and variability in NFOG-Q scores. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the NFOG-Q is insufficiently reliable or responsive to detect small effect sizes, as changes need to go beyond 35% to surpass measurement error. Therefore, we warrant caution in using the NFOG-Q as a primary outcome in clinical trials. These results emphasize the need for robust and objective freezing of gait outcome measures.
Authors: S Vercruysse; W Vandenberghe; L Münks; B Nuttin; H Devos; A Nieuwboer Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: J M Shine; S T Moore; S J Bolitho; T R Morris; V Dilda; S L Naismith; S J G Lewis Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Steven T Moore; Don A Yungher; Tiffany R Morris; Valentina Dilda; Hamish G MacDougall; James M Shine; Sharon L Naismith; Simon J G Lewis Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Simon Lewis; Stewart Factor; Nir Giladi; Alice Nieuwboer; John Nutt; Mark Hallett Journal: Transl Neurodegener Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 9.883
Authors: Daniel Rodríguez-Martín; Joan Cabestany; Carlos Pérez-López; Marti Pie; Joan Calvet; Albert Samà; Chiara Capra; Andreu Català; Alejandro Rodríguez-Molinero Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Tamine T C Capato; Nienke M de Vries; Joanna IntHout; Jordache Ramjith; Egberto R Barbosa; Jorik Nonnekes; Bastiaan R Bloem Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2020-10-30