PARKINSON EDGE Task Force Members
- Deb Kegelmeyer PT, DPT, MS, GCS, Chair
- –The Ohio State University, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Physical Therapy Division, OH
- Terry Ellis PT, PhD, NCS
- –Boston University, College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent; Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training
- Alicia Esposito PT, DPT, NCS
- –New York University Langone Medical Center-The Rusk Institute
- Rosemary Gallagher PT, DPT, GCS PhD(c)
- –New York Institute of Technology, School of Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy, Old Westbury, NY
- Cathy C. Harro PT, MS, NCS
- –Grand Valley State University, College of Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy
- Jeffrey Hoder PT, DPT, NCS
- –Virginia Commonwealth University, andVCU PD and Movement Disorders Center
- Erin Hussey DPT, MS, NCS
- –University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, Department of Health Professions, Physical Therapy Program
- Suzanne Oneal , PT, DPT, NCS
- –Shea Scottsdale Healthcare, Outpatient Therapy Department
The Parkinson Evidence Database to Guide Effectiveness (PDEDGE) task force was organized in 2012 and met for the first time at CSM 2013. The team included a balance of clinicians, academicians and scientists reflecting geographical, practice and research experience.
At the 2013 organization meeting, Task Force members developed Parkinson disease specific criteria to evaluate measures and to assess their utility in clinical, academic and research practice settings.
An initial survey generated a candidate list of 116 measures from which the PDEDGE task force Task Force selected 57 tests and measures representing those commonly used for the assessment of persons with Parkinson disease for further PDEDGE analysis.
The selected outcome measures were subdivided into categories for assessment based on the Hoehn and Yahr stages of disease (I through V) for Parkinson’s disease. Measures were also assessed based on International Classification of Function (ICF) categories of body structure and function, activity and participation.
The PDEDGE task force then divided into four, two-person teams and each team performed a comprehensive literature review on a subset of the refined list of candidate measures. These teams compiled descriptive and psychometric data on each measure from which a fact sheet was developed. Fact sheets developed by individual team members were initially cross-checked by the “secondary” reviewer on that sheet. Using evaluation criteria developed by the task force, the 2 person teams rated their assigned measures according to test psychometric and clinical utility standards. Following rating consensus within the 2 person review teams, measures were more broadly considered and rated by the full task force of 8 members using an on-line Delphi process. Ratings for individual measures were deliberated until 80% agreement was reached for each of the rated categories.
The PDEDEGE task force worked in close collaboration with project managers at Rehab Measures.org to facilitate the on-line dissemination of task force findings. The task force also developed recommendations in support of a core set of outcome measures representing all ICF categories that were deemed appropriate for use across multiple stages of the disease process, and across multiple settings and for multiple user groups (e.g., clinician, educator, researcher). Findings and recommendations for the use of outcome measures for assessment of those with PD were presented at CSM 2014. The PDEDGE task force summary documents and recommendations are available both on the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy page and at www.RehabilitationMeasures.org.
Ongoing translation efforts for the PDEDGE TF recommendations include: 1) Clinical Translation: Select Outcome measures for use in the patient population with Parkinson’s disease will be published in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation to maximize visibility of measures with outstanding clinical utility and test psychometrics; 2) Research Translation: The PD EDGE TF will recommend targeted research to fill gaps in knowledge related to psychometric properties of outcome measures applicable to persons with PD; and 3.) Public Translation: the TF members are putting together documents for public dissemination. This proposed effort aims to strengthen the most promising Parkinson's disease outcome measures through clinical integration and research aimed at enhancing test psychometric properties. The goal of these translational efforts is to improve clinical management, facilitate outcomes research across centers, and research utilization for select measures used to assess individuals with Parkinson's disease.
- excellent psychometrics in target population (e.g. valid and reliable with available data to guideinterpretation) AND
- excellent clinical utility (e.g. administration is < 20 minutes, requires equipment typically found in the clinic, no copyright payment required, easy to score)
- good- psychometrics (may lack information about reliability, validity, or available data to guide interpretation) in target population AND
- good clinical utility (e.g. administration/scoring > 20 minutes, may require additional equipment to purchase or construct)
Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group
- good or excellent psychometric data demonstrated in at least one population*, but insufficient study in target population to support a stronger recommendation (does not have any negative psychometric data)
- good clinical utility (e.g. administration/scoring > 20 minutes, may require additional equipment to purchase or construct) No negative psychometric data.
Do not Recommend
- poor psychometrics (inadequate reliability or validity)OR
- limited clinical utility (extensive testing time, unusual or expensive equipment, ongoing costs to administer, etc.)
•Recommendations for use of each outcome measure reviewed were categorized according to four criteria:
- Disease Stage (Hoehn & Yahr I, II, III, IV and V);
- Academic: Recommendations for each outcome measure to entry level PT education were also included. Measures were characterized as those that students should learn to administer, should be exposed to, or are not recommended.
- Research: Measures were categorized as being recommended or not recommended for use in research and whether there was a need for additional research for a given measure.
Click here for completed EDGE documents of all the outcome measures reviewed, which contains detailed information on the psychometric properties of the outcome measures and references.
Click here to search for completed Rehab Measures templates of for Parkinson’s disease outcome measures reviewed. Rehab Measures templates provide additional detail characterizing comprehensive psychometric test properties, comments on clinical utility, and for a full reference list. Rehab Measures will periodically update the the published summary for each posted outcome measure in their database. These updates will occur in concert with ongoing efforts from the PDEDGE task force and other members of the degenerative disease practice community. In addition, each rehab measure summary invites feedback from the professional community.
Documents summarizing each of the PDEDGE task force recommendations are available by clicking on the following links:
One Page Summary of Recommendations
Clinical by Disease Severity
Entry Level Education
Single Measure Detailed Ratings
Table of All Measures