Validation of the Patient-Rated Version of the Parkinson Anxiety Scale in Iranian People with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Patient-Rated Parkinson’s Anxiety Scale (PAS-PR) in people with Parkinson’s Disease (PwPD).Methods In this cross-sectional study, we assessed Persian-speaking PwPD using the PAS-PR. Psychometric evaluation included: exploratory factor analysis (EFA); internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), test – retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient); PAS-PR/observer-rated PAS (PAS-OR) agreement (Bland-Altman); and convergent validity against Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A), the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and the 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21).Results Among 191 PwPD (58% male, mean age 69.2 ± 4.6 years; Hoehn & Yahr stages 1–4: 36.7%, 42.4%, 18.3%, and 2.6%, respectively), EFA revealed the expected three-factor structure. The PAS-PR demonstrated excellent reliability (α = 0.88; ICC = 0.96) and strong agreement with PAS-OR (96.19%). Convergent validity was established through significant correlations with GAI, HADS-A, BAI and DASS-21 (r = 0.61–0.75).Conclusions The PAS-PR, with its acceptable psychometric properties, proves to be a valuable tool for assessing anxiety in the Persian-speaking PwPD.Clinical Implications The PAS-PR offers a practical, tailored tool for identifying diverse anxiety symptoms in Parkinson’s patients, streamlining screening in clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".