SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Validity and reliability of a new tool to evaluate handwriting difficulties in Parkinson's disease.

PLoS One · 2017-03-02

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173157PMID: 28253374

Open accessresearch-article; Validation Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundHandwriting in Parkinson's disease (PD) features specific abnormalities which are difficult to assess in clinical practice since no specific tool for evaluation of spontaneous movement is currently available.ObjectiveThis study aims to validate the 'Systematic Screening of Handwriting Difficulties' (SOS-test) in patients with PD.MethodsHandwriting performance of 87 patients and 26 healthy age-matched controls was examined using the SOS-test. Sixty-seven patients were tested a second time within a period of one month. Participants were asked to copy as much as possible of a text within 5 minutes with the instruction to write as neatly and quickly as in daily life. Writing speed (letters in 5 minutes), size (mm) and quality of handwriting were compared. Correlation analysis was performed between SOS outcomes and other fine motor skill measurements and disease characteristics. Intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman correlation coefficient.ResultsPatients with PD had a smaller (p = 0.043) and slower (p 0.769 for both groups).ConclusionThe SOS-test is a short and effective tool to detect handwriting problems in PD with excellent reliability. It can therefore be recommended as a clinical instrument for standardized screening of handwriting deficits in PD.

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.