Evaluating the psychometric properties of an e-based version of the 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Crispin Jenkinson¹  Jill Dawson¹  Laura Kelly¹  Sarah Dummett¹  David Morley¹ 

[1] Health Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

关键词: Validity;    Reliability;    ePROs;    Electronic patient reported outcomes;    ePDQ;    e-based;    Parkinson’s disease questionnaire;    PDQ-39;   

Others  :  1133897
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0193-1

 received in 2014-09-25, accepted in 2014-12-15,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) is the most thoroughly validated and extensively used self-report measure for the assessment of health-related quality of life in people with Parkinson’s (PwP). Given the extent of its use and increasing emphasis on electronic data capture, an e-based version of the PDQ-39, the ePDQ, has recently been developed. The aim of this short report is to present some key reliability and validity data that confirm the psychometric quality of the ePDQ.

Findings

Participants were emailed a unique link to an online survey incorporating the ePDQ and demographic questions. A total of 118 PwP fully completed the survey. Floor and ceiling effects were calculated to ensure responses were not biased to extreme values. Consequently, score reliability was assessed by item-total correlations with a range from 0.34 to 0.90. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at between 0.64 and 0.95 for the eight domains of the ePDQ. Construct validity was assessed by comparing domain scores in relation to disease duration and gender, with hypothesised differences being largely confirmed. Construct validity was further assessed following a higher order factor analysis which confirmed the appropriateness of calculating a summary index score. Subsequently, significant, but moderate correlations were calculated between the ePDQ summary index score and disease duration and age at diagnosis.

Conclusions

Results indicate that the ePDQ largely mirrors the properties of its parent instrument, the PDQ-39, in terms of reliability and validity. Potential users can therefore incorporate the ePDQ into computer-based data capture systems with confidence.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Morley et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Greenhall R: The development of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 1995, 4:241-8.
• [2]Martinez-Martin P, Jeukens-Visser M, Lyons K, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Selai C, Siderowf A, et al.: Health-related quality-of-life scales in Parkinson’s disease: critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2011, 26:2371-80.
• [3]Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R: PDQ-39: a review of the development, validation and application of a Parkinson’s disease quality of life questionnaire and its associated measures. J Neurol 1998, 245(Suppl 1):10-4.
• [4]Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Peto V, Hyman N, Greenhall R: Desirable properties for instruments assessing quality of life: evidence from the PDQ-39. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997, 62:104.
• [5]Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R: Determining minimally important differences for the Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39). Age Ageing 2001, 30:299-302.
• [6]Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Dummett S, Morley D, Saunders P: The Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire: User Manual. 3rd edition. Isis Outcomes, Oxford; 2012.
• [7]McGhee D, Parker A, Fielding S, Counsell C: Which clinical measures are most appropriate for measuring disease progression in Parkinson’s disease? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013, 84:e2.
• [8]Marinus J, Ramaker C, van-Hilten JJ, Stiggelbout AM: Health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review of disease specific instruments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002, 72:241-8.
• [9]Shah J, Rajgor D, Pradhan S, McCready M, Zaveri A, Pietrobon R: Electronic data capture for registries and clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery: open source versus commercial systems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2664-71.
• [10]Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E: Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 2012, 62:337-47.
• [11]Holzner B, Giesinger JM, Pinggera J, Zugal S, Schöpf F, Oberguggenberger AS, et al.: The Computer-based Health Evaluation Software (CHES): a software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012, 12:126. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Zbrozek A, Hebert J, Gogates G, Thorell R, Dell C, Molsen E, et al.: Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data-recommendations for clinical trial teams: report of the ISPOR ePRO systems validation good research practices task force. Value Health 2013, 16:480-9.
• [13]Morley D, Dummett S, Kelly L, Dawson J, Jenkinson C: An electronic version of the PDQ-39: acceptability to respondents and assessment of alternative response formats. J Parkinsons Dis 2014, 4:467-72.
• [14]Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, et al.: Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health 2009, 12:419-29.
• [15]Qualtrics (2005) Qualtrics. 37,892 ed. Provo, Utah, USA: Qualtrics Research Suite.
• [16]Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N: The Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson’s disease summary index score. Age Ageing 1997, 26:353-7.
• [17]Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ: Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(9):iii. 1-48
• [18]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hayduk LA, Cummings GG, Norton PG: Advancing the argument for validity of the Alberta Context Tool with healthcare aides in residential long-term care. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust: Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria Qual Life Res 2002, 11:193-205.
• [20]Helmstater G: Principles of Psychological Measurement. Appleton, New York; 1964.
• [21]Brazier J, Deverill M: A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ 1999, 8:41-51.
• [22]Morley D, Selai C, Schrag A, Thompson A, Jahanshahi M: Refinement and validation of the parental illness impact scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2010, 16:181-5.
• [23]Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G: How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health 2011, 14:907-20.
• [24]Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD: SF-36 Physical & Mental Summary Scores: A User’s Manual. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston; 1994.
• [25]Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney C, Rogers WH, Raczek A: Comparison of methods for scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care 1995, 33:AS264-79.
• [26]Morley D, Jenkinson C, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, et al.: The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ): development and validation of a summary index score. Bone Joint Res 2013, 2:66-9.
• [27]Morley D, Dummett S, Kelly L, Peters M, Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, et al.: The PDQ-Carer: development and validation of a summary index score. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2013, 19:448-9.