Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Validation study demonstrates strong validity and reliability for the Japanese Lindop Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessment, suggesting its clinical utility for evaluating functional mobility.
INTRODUCTION: The 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. METHODS: Sixty-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. RESULTS: The 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 < 0.0001). Internal consistency was excellent for the total score, gait mobility section, and bed mobility section (Cronbach's α = 0.95, 0.94, and 0.94, respectively). Inter-rater reliability was excellent for the total score (ICC [2, 1] = 0.97). Item-level agreement assessed using quadratic weighted kappa coefficients ranged from 0.46 to 1.00 (all p ≤ 0.009). CONCLUSION: The 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taniguchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: