SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Japanese translation of lindop parkinson's disease mobility assessment (LPA): validity and reliability study.

Neurol Sci · 2026-09-08

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-026-09370-0PMID: 42709267

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

IntroductionThe Lindop Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessment (LPA) is a Parkinson's disease (PD)-specific clinical scale. The LPA was designed to assess core functional mobility in rehabilitation, including gait and bed mobility. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the LPA and evaluate its validity and reliability in PD.MethodsSixty-two people with PD participated in the validation analyses. The Japanese version of the LPA was developed through a standardized translation and cross-cultural adaptation process. Construct validity was examined using Spearman's rank correlations between LPA scores and relevant clinical measures. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Inter-rater reliability for video-based assessments was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and quadratic weighted kappa coefficients.ResultsThe total LPA score showed very strong correlations with the axial subscore, MDS-UPDRS Part 3, bradykinesia subscore, and Berg Balance Scale (Spearman's rho = - 0.83, - 0.74, - 0.70, and 0.75, respectively; all FDR-adjusted p ConclusionThe Japanese version of the LPA demonstrated good construct validity and excellent internal consistency and inter-rater reliability for the total score in assessing gait and bed mobility in PD. Further studies are needed to examine its responsiveness and applicability among individuals with more advanced functional impairment.

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.