Advertisement

Measurement Characteristics and Clinical Utility of the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire in Individuals With Parkinson Disease

Published:August 17, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.04.027
      Parkinson disease (PD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative conditions and affects >10 million people worldwide.1. 2. Freezing of gait (FOG) is a commonly observed symptom in individuals with PD,3 with prevalence rates ranging between 20% and 40%.4. 5. 6. The Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOGQ) is a 6-item questionnaire used to assess FOG severity in patients with PD.7. 8. A 5-point scale, 0 (absence of symptoms) to 4 (most severe), is used for each item to rank symptom severity.7 The FOGQ total score ranges from 0 to 24 (higher scores correspond to more severe FOG), has demonstrated excellent reliability,7. 8. and has demonstrated adequate to excellent criterion validity with other PD-specific measurement tools.7. 9. 10. Additionally, the FOGQ has been shown to be more sensitive in detecting FOG than the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale.7 The FOGQ can be administered and scored in <10 minutes, making it a clinically useful and low-burden instrument. The FOGQ is free to use, is available in several languages, and has been recommended by the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association's Parkinson's Taskforce.
      This abbreviated summary provides a review of the psychometric properties of the FOGQ in people with PD. A full review of the FOGQ and reviews of nearly 375 other instruments for patients with various health conditions can be found at www.rehabmeasures.org.
      Please address correspondence to [email protected] .
      • 1.
        Parkinson's Disease Foundation. Statistics on Parkinson's. 2017. Available at: http://www.pdf.org/parkinson_statistics. Accessed April 27, 2017.
      • 2.
        de Lau LM, Breteler MM. Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:525-35.
      • 3.
        Bohlhalter S, Kaegi G. Parkinsonism: heterogeneity of a common neurological syndrome. Swiss Med Wkly 2011;141:w13293.
      • 4.
        Bloem BR, Hausdorff JM, Visser JE, Giladi N. Falls and freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: a review of two interconnected, episodic phenomena. Mov Disord 2004;19:871-84.
      • 5.
        Lamberti P, Armenise S, Castaldo V, et al. Freezing gait in Parkinson's disease. Eur Neurol 1997;38:297-301.
      • 6.
        Giladi N, Treves TA, Simon ES, et al. Freezing of gait in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 2001;108:53-61.
      • 7.
        Giladi N, Shabtai H, Simon ES, Biran S, Tal J, Korczyn AD. Construction of freezing of gait questionnaire for patients with Parkinsonism. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2000;6:165-70.
      • 8.
        Giladi N, Tal J, Azulay T, et al. Validation of the freezing of gait questionnaire in patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2009;24:655-61.
      • 9.
        Nilsson MH, Hagell P. Freezing of Gait Questionnaire: validity and reliability of the Swedish version. Acta Neurol Scand 2009;120:331-4.
      • 10.
        Ellis T, Cavanaugh JT, Earhart GM, Ford MP, Foreman KB, Dibble LE. Which measures of physical function and motor impairment best predict quality of life in Parkinson's disease? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011;17:693-7.
      • 11.
        Lim I, van Wegen E, Jones D, et al. Identifying fallers with Parkinson's disease using home-based tests: who is at risk? Mov Disord 2008;23:2411-5.
      • 12.
        Schaafsma JD, Balash Y, Gurevich T, Bartels AL, Hausdorff JM, Giladi N. Characterization of freezing of gait subtypes and the response of each to levodopa in Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol 2003;10:391-8.
      This instrument summary is designed to facilitate the selection of outcome measures by clinicians. The information contained in this summary represents a sample of the peer-reviewed research available at the time of this summary's publication. The information contained in this summary does not constitute an endorsement of this instrument for clinical practice. The views expressed are those of the summary authors and do not represent those of authors' employers, instrument owner(s), the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the Rehabilitation Measures Database, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information contained in this summary has not been reviewed externally.
      The Rehabilitation Measures Database and Instrument Summary Tear-sheets were initially funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Improving Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes (grant no. H133B090024).