ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Instrument Reviewers

Erin Hussey, DPT, MS, NCS & the PD EDGE Task Force of the Neurology Section of the APTA.

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association¡¯s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson¡¯s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  

Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage: 

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

Considerations

Shortly after publication of SF-12 in 1996, the primary authors began the process of revision to both SF-36 and SF-12 to address criticisms of the surveys, leading to publication of SF-12v2 6 years later (2002). The RMD document providing summary of SF-36 includes studies specific to both v1 and v2 and readers are referred to that summary for some additional information. Changes made during revision were substantive, with items re-worked for clarity and the scale of several domains revised to address problems with responsiveness and ceiling/floor effects. Due to the significance of these changes and the rapid change from v1 to v2, the PD EDGE group initially reviewing SF-12 for a Rehab Measures summary document focused only on SF-12v2, thus intentionally leaving out a few studies that addressed any criticisms or strengths specific to Parkinson Disease using SF-12v1 (Jacobsson et al, 2012; Lindskov et al, 2007; Tan et al, 2013). The details of these studies are not included in this RMD since they used SF-12v1. Following is a brief summary of conclusions 

relevant to SF-12v1

• Jakobsson et al, 2012; N = 4,278 elderly, 159 with PD, 89 post-stroke. Sweden. Although reporting acceptable reliability and consistency, authors provided criticism specific to the validity of elements of SF-12v1 using the 2-factor composite scales. In conclusion, they recommended against use of the v1 scale for patients with neurologic conditions such as stroke and PD. 
• Lindskov et al, 2007. N = 96 with PD, Hoehn & Yahr stages 1-3; intervention study. Reported a lack of responsiveness with no significant change in either PCS or MCS composite scores for either experimental or control groups from baseline to outcome. They questioned whether the SF-12v1 was valid in construct for use with PD and other neurologic conditions. 
• Tan et al, 2013; Systematic review, concluded that the validity of SF-12 has not yet been tested in Parkinson Disease. Within the systematic review, Lindskov et al, 2007 was rated as 1- for level of evidence based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A 1 indicates a strong study while a minus indicator represents a study deemed high risk for bias due to methodology.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Bibliography

Cheak-Zamora, N. C., Wyrwich, K. W., et al. (2009). "Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the medical expenditure panel survey." Qual Life Res 18(6): 727-735.   

Jakobsson, U., Westergren, A., et al. (2012). "Construct validity of the SF-12 in three different samples." J Eval Clin Pract 18(3): 560-566.   

Lindskov, S., Westergren, A., et al. (2007). "A controlled trial of an educational programme for people with Parkinson's disease." J Clin Nurs 16(11C): 368-376. 

Tan, S. B., Williams, A. F., et al. (2014). "Effectiveness of multidisciplinary interventions to improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's disease: A systematic review." Int J Nurs Stud 51(1): 166-174.