Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 29–34 | Cite as

An application of generalizability theory to study a physical performance measure in Parkinson’s disease

  • M. Kuchibhatla
  • C. Pieper
  • M. Schenkman
Original Article


Clinicians and researchers frequently quantify impairments and functional ability to monitor patient’s symptoms and progress. For some patients, such as those with Parkinson’s disease (PD), symptoms can fluctuate from day to day, making reliable measurement difficult. Multiple measures then may be required to obtain reliable data. Decisions must be made, balancing the optimum measurement schedule to obtain “good reliability” against burden to the patient. This investigation demonstrates the use of Generalizability Theory in determining the testing schedule when designing an experiment involving patients with known fluctuations of symptoms. In this investigation we use “Functional Axial Rotation” (FAR), a measure of spinal flexibility, to illustrate the use of Generalizability Theory for designing an experiment using participants who have PD. Measurements of FAR were taken on 13 participants, aged 60 or older, who were in early and midstages of PD. Three measurements were obtained on each of two consecutive days, and repeated on two consecutive days a week later, giving a total of 12 measures of FAR for each individual. Four sources of variation (subject, week, day and trial) were employed to estimate the reliability of FAR under several designs. Assuming different schedules of measures across weeks, days and trials, the estimated reliability of FAR for four measurements is in the range of 0.75 to 0.83, and for eight measurements in the range of 0.82 to 0.86. We discuss the use of this type of analysis in the determination of the optimum measurement design for experiments involving subjects with known fluctuations.

Key words

Generalizability theory intraclass correlation Parkinson’s disease reliability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schenkman M., Cutson T.M., Kuchibhatla M., Chandler J., Pieper C.F., Ray L., Laub K.C.: Exercise to improve spinal flexibility and function for people with Parkinson’s Disease. A randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 46: 1207–1216, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cutson T.M., Laub K.C., Schenkman M.: Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions in the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. Phys. Ther. 75: 363–373, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwab J.F., England A.C.: Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s Disease. In: Billingham F.H., Donaldson M.C. (Eds.), Third Symposium on Parkinson’s Disease. Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1969, pp. 152–157.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canter C.J., de la Torre R., Mier M.: A method for evaluation of disability in patients with Parkinson’s Disease. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 133: 143–147, 1961.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Webster D.D.: Clinical analysis of the disability in Parkinson’s disease. Mod. Treatm. 5: 257–282, 1968.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schenkman M.: Parkinson’s Disease. Update on clinical features, physiology, and treatment. In: Riolo L. (Ed.), Touch Home series. American Physical Therapy Association, Alexandria, VA, 1999 (in press).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schenkman M., Cutson T.M., Morey M., Kuchibhatla M.: Axial mobility, axial configuration and physical performance of community dwelling elders with and without Parkinson’s Disease. Phys. Ther. 76 (Suppl.): S71, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergstrom G., Aniansson A., Bjelle A., Grimbly G., Lundgren-Lindquist B., Svanborg A.: Functional consequences of joint impairment at age 79. Scand. J. Rehab. Med. 17: 183–190, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ryan S.D., Fried L.P.: Impact of kyphosis on daily functioning. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 45: 1479–1486, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schenkman M., Hughes M.A., Bowden M., Studenski S.A.: A new device for measuring functional axial rotation: Technical report. Phys. Ther. 75: 151–156, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoehn M.M., Yahr M.D.: Parkinsonism: Onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 17: 427–442, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E., McHugh P.R.: ‘Mini-mental-state’: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12: 189–198, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cronbach L.J., Glaser G.C., Nanda H., Rajaratnam N.: The dependability of behavioral measurements. John Wiley Publishers, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Llabre M.M., Ironson G.H., Spitzer S.B., Gellman M.D., Weidler D.J., Schneiderman N.: How many blood pressure measurements are enough? An application of generalizability theory to the study of blood pressure reliability. Psychophysiology 25: 97–106, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shavelson R.J., Webb N.M., Rowley G.L.: Generalizability theory. Am. Psych. 44: 922–932, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leslie J.F.: Generalizability theory-Inferences and practical applications. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrout P., Fleiss J.: Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psych. Bull. 86: 420–428, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internal Publishing Switzerland 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Center for the Study of Aging and Human DevelopmentDUMCDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community and Family Medicine, Division of BiometryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, Center for the Study of Aging and Human DevelopmentDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations