SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

German translation and validation of the "freezing of gait questionnaire" in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Parkinsons Dis · 2015-01-29

DOI: 10.1155/2015/982058PMID: 25705546

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background. Freezing of Gait (FOG) is a disabling parkinsonian symptom. The Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOG-Q) reliably detects FOG in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Objectives. The aim of this study was to develop a German translated version of the FOG-Q and to assess its validity. Methods. The translation was accomplished using forward-backward-translation. The construct validity of the FOG-Q was examined in twenty-seven German native speaking PD patients. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the FOG-Q with the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) II-III, the Parkinson Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), and the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). Divergent validity was assessed by correlating the FOG-Q with the MDS-UPDRS I. The internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha (Cα). Results. A good internal structure of the FOG-Q was found (Cα = 0.83). Significant moderate correlations between the FOG-Q and the MDS-UPDRS item 2.13 (freezing) (r s = 0.568, P = 0.002) and between the FOG-Q and the PDQ-39 subscale mobility (r s = 0.516, P = 0.006) were found. The lack of correlation with the MDS-UPDRS I demonstrated good divergent validity. Conclusion. The German FOG-Q is a valid tool to assess FOG in German native speaking PD patients.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.