Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire and the Sialorrhea Clinical Scale in Portuguese patients with Parkinson's disease.
IF 0.7 4区 医学Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Ana Rita Cardoso, Isabel Guimarães, Helena Santos, Joana Carvalho, Daisy Abreu, Nilza Gonçalves, Joaquim J Ferreira
{"title":"Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire and the Sialorrhea Clinical Scale in Portuguese patients with Parkinson's disease.","authors":"Ana Rita Cardoso, Isabel Guimarães, Helena Santos, Joana Carvalho, Daisy Abreu, Nilza Gonçalves, Joaquim J Ferreira","doi":"10.1080/14015439.2020.1792979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To date, no valid outcome measure has been developed in European Portuguese (EP) to evaluate the Parkinsons' Disease (PD) patients' (PwP) reports regarding their swallowing disturbances.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Sialorrhea Clinical Scale for PD (SCS-PD) into EP and to determine its clinimetric properties in PwP.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The original English SDQ and SCS-PD versions were cross-culturally adapted following recommendations established in international guidelines. The validation process involved 75 PwP and 65 healthy sex- and age-matched participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EP versions of the SDQ and SCS-PD are equivalent to the original versions (content, depth, and scoring). Statistical analyses for the SDQ tool revealed good feasibility (missing data <5%), acceptability (no floor or ceiling effects), excellent internal consistency (Cronbach´s α = 0.95), good construct validity (78.5% revealed large to moderate loadings), moderate convergent validity (<i>r</i> = 0.60), good divergent validity (<i>r</i> = 0.40), good known-groups validity (<i>p</i>-value < .05) and a fair sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.700). Statistical analyses for the SCS-PD tool shows good feasibility, reasonable acceptability (floor effect), good internal consistency (Cronbach´s α = 0.85), good construct validity (85.7% showed between large to moderate loadings), good convergent validity (<i>r</i> = 0.78), good divergent validity (<i>r</i> = 0.39), good known groups validity (<i>p</i>-value < .05) and a fair sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.704).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EP versions of the SDQ and SCS-PD maintained the characteristics of the original versions and therefore consistent tools to be used in PwP.</p>","PeriodicalId":49903,"journal":{"name":"Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14015439.2020.1792979","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2020.1792979","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Introduction: To date, no valid outcome measure has been developed in European Portuguese (EP) to evaluate the Parkinsons' Disease (PD) patients' (PwP) reports regarding their swallowing disturbances.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Sialorrhea Clinical Scale for PD (SCS-PD) into EP and to determine its clinimetric properties in PwP.
Materials and methods: The original English SDQ and SCS-PD versions were cross-culturally adapted following recommendations established in international guidelines. The validation process involved 75 PwP and 65 healthy sex- and age-matched participants.
Results: The EP versions of the SDQ and SCS-PD are equivalent to the original versions (content, depth, and scoring). Statistical analyses for the SDQ tool revealed good feasibility (missing data <5%), acceptability (no floor or ceiling effects), excellent internal consistency (Cronbach´s α = 0.95), good construct validity (78.5% revealed large to moderate loadings), moderate convergent validity (r = 0.60), good divergent validity (r = 0.40), good known-groups validity (p-value < .05) and a fair sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.700). Statistical analyses for the SCS-PD tool shows good feasibility, reasonable acceptability (floor effect), good internal consistency (Cronbach´s α = 0.85), good construct validity (85.7% showed between large to moderate loadings), good convergent validity (r = 0.78), good divergent validity (r = 0.39), good known groups validity (p-value < .05) and a fair sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.704).
Conclusions: The EP versions of the SDQ and SCS-PD maintained the characteristics of the original versions and therefore consistent tools to be used in PwP.
期刊介绍:
Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology is an amalgamation of the former journals Scandinavian Journal of Logopedics & Phoniatrics and VOICE.
The intention is to cover topics related to speech, language and voice pathology as well as normal voice function in its different aspects. The Journal covers a wide range of topics, including:
Phonation and laryngeal physiology
Speech and language development
Voice disorders
Clinical measurements of speech, language and voice
Professional voice including singing
Bilingualism
Cleft lip and palate
Dyslexia
Fluency disorders
Neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics
Aphasia
Motor speech disorders
Voice rehabilitation of laryngectomees
Augmentative and alternative communication
Acoustics
Dysphagia
Publications may have the form of original articles, i.e. theoretical or methodological studies or empirical reports, of reviews of books and dissertations, as well as of short reports, of minor or ongoing studies or short notes, commenting on earlier published material. Submitted papers will be evaluated by referees with relevant expertise.