UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Equating scores of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test and Sniffin' Sticks test in patients with Parkinson's disease.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Publication Sub Type:
    Article
  • Authors:
    Lawton M, Hu MT, Baig F, Ruffmann C, Barron E, Swallow DM, Malek N, Grosset KA, Bajaj N, Barker RA, Williams N, Burn DJ, Foltynie T, Morris HR, Wood NW, May MT, Grosset DG, Ben-Shlomo Y
  • Publication date:
    25/09/2016
  • Journal:
    Parkinsonism Relat Disord
  • Status:
    Published
  • Country:
    England
  • PII:
    S1353-8020(16)30381-9
  • Language:
    ENG
  • Keywords:
    Equating, Item Response Theory, Olfaction, Sniffin’ Sticks, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impaired olfaction is an important feature in Parkinson's disease (PD) and other neurological diseases. A variety of smell identification tests exist such as "Sniffin' Sticks" and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). An important part of research is being able to replicate findings or combining studies in a meta-analysis. This is difficult if olfaction has been measured using different metrics. We present conversion methods between the: UPSIT, Sniffin' 16, and Brief-SIT (B-SIT); and Sniffin' 12 and Sniffin' 16 odour identification tests. METHODS: We used two incident cohorts of patients with PD who were tested with either the Sniffin' 16 (n = 1131) or UPSIT (n = 980) and a validation dataset of 128 individuals who took both tests. We used the equipercentile and Item Response Theory (IRT) methods to equate the olfaction scales. RESULTS: The equipercentile conversion suggested some bias between UPSIT and Sniffin' 16 tests across the two groups. The IRT method shows very good characteristics between the true and converted Sniffin' 16 (delta mean = 0.14, median = 0) based on UPSIT. The equipercentile conversion between the Sniffin' 12 and 16 item worked well (delta mean = 0.01, median = 0). The UPSIT to B-SIT conversion showed evidence of bias but amongst PD cases worked well (mean delta = -0.08, median = 0). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that one can convert UPSIT to B-SIT or Sniffin' 16, and Sniffin' 12 to 16 scores in a valid way. This can facilitate direct comparison between tests aiding future collaborative analyses and evidence synthesis.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Author
Clinical and Movement Neurosciences
Author
Clinical and Movement Neurosciences
Author
Clinical and Movement Neurosciences
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by