Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the facial disability index into Brazilian Portuguese

Graciano, Agnaldo José; Bonin, Marcela M.; Mory, Marion R.; Tessitore, Adriana; Paschoal, Jorge Rizzato; Chone, Carlos Takahiro

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2019.04.003

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the introduction of the original FDI in the 1990s, the FDI has been translated and validated to Spanish [9], Swedish [10], Italian [11], German [12], French [13], and Brazilian Portuguese [14]. However, previous studies did not include a pilot test stage [11,12], pre-determined hypotheses for adequate construct validity [9,10,[12][13][14], did not perform test-retest reliability [9,12], and none determined smallest detectable change the FDI [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Aim of this study was to translate the FDI into Dutch and culturally validate the Dutch version of the FDI (FDI-NL) for use in Dutch speaking populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health-related quality of life in facial palsy: translation and validation of the Dutch version Facial Disability Index

Veen

Bruins

Artan

et al. 2020

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures are essential in the evaluation of facial palsy. Aim of this study was to translate and validate the Facial Disability Index (FDI) for use in the Netherlands. Methods: The FDI was translated into Dutch according to a forward-backward method. Construct validity was assessed by formulating 22 hypotheses regarding associations of FDI scores with the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation scale, the Synkinesis Assessment Questionnaire, the Short Form-12 and the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System. Validity was considered adequate if at least 75% (i.e. 17 out of 22) of the hypotheses were confirmed. Additionally, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Cronbach's α was calculated as a measure of internal consistency. Participants were asked to fill out the FDI a second time after 2 weeks to analyse test-retest reliability. Lastly, smallest detectable change was calculated. Results: In total, 19 hypotheses (86.4%) were confirmed. Confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit for the two factor structure of the original FDI (root mean square error of approximation = 0.064, standardized root mean square residual = 0.081, comparative fit index = 0.925, Chi-square = 50.22 with 34 degrees of freedom). Internal consistency for the FDI physical function scale was good (α > 0.720). Internal consistency for the FDI social/wellbeing scale was slightly less (α > 0.574). Test-retest reliability for both scales was good (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.786). Smallest detectable change at the level of the individual was 17.6 points for the physical function and 17.7 points for the social/well-being function, and at group level 1.9 points for both scales. Conclusion: The Dutch version FDI shows good psychometric properties. The relatively large values for individual smallest detectable change may limit clinical use. The translation and widespread use of the FDI in multiple languages can help to compare treatment results internationally.

show abstract