Psychometric Evidence for an Augmented PDAQ for Improved Measurement of Cognition‐Related IADLs in Parkinson's Disease

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The Penn Parkinson's Daily Activities Questionnaire-27 (PDAQ-27) is a 27-item measure of cognitive instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients developed by integrating 12 additional items with the original 15-item PDAQ-15 via mixed-methods research with the goal of creating a more balanced and sensitive instrument. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the PDAQ-27 in a PD cohort using both patient and knowledgeable informant (KI) responses. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 114 PD participants was conducted. Participants and, when available, KIs completed the PDAQ-27. Psychometric properties were evaluated using Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) and Classical Test Theory (CTT). Consistency between patient- and KI-reported versions was assessed using RMT framework. RESULTS: The PDAQ-27 demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95; Person Separation Index = 0.93) and good Rasch model fit, with no significant local dependency or differential item functioning. The PDAQ-27 total score correlated moderately with cognitive tests (eg, DRS-2 total: r = 0.37; MoCA: r = 0.30), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures (eg, PDQ-39 cognition domain: r = 0.65), supporting construct validity. Compared with the PDAQ-15, the PDAQ-27 marginally improved coverage of mild cognitive IADL impairments, though low-end discrimination remained limited. Patient and KI scores were highly correlated and largely equivalent, despite differing response patterns reflecting the different perspectives of patients and KIs. CONCLUSION: The PDAQ-27 is a promising measure of cognition-related IADLs in patients with PD, with solid cross-sectional psychometric performance. Further research on its longitudinal properties will be needed to recommend its future use in PD studies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.