Cross-Cultural Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Quality of Oncology Nursing Care Scale
Pedro Gomes,
Susana Ribeiro,
Marcelle Silva
et al.
Abstract:Background: Quality assessment in oncology nursing care has been a growing topic in the literature, gaining relevance as oncological nursing care becomes more complex as the science progresses. However, there are no instruments that assess the perception of the quality of oncology nursing care from the point of view of patients for the Portuguese population. Thus, the cross-cultural translation and validation of the Quality of Oncology Nursing Care Scale (QONCS) was performed for the Portuguese context. This i… Show more
“…8 Measurement instruments can include questionnaires, tests, rating scales and self-reports, 9 the latter being also known as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs). 10 In recent years we have conducted several cross-cultural validation studies of different measuring instruments, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] which constitute a significant contribution to the development of experimental designs in the field of nursing and health services research. Several studies across different scientific areas are characterized by the use of specific terminology and by seeking to archive various equivalences across cultures.…”
Cross-cultural validation of self-reported measurement instruments for research is a long and complex process, which involves specific risks of bias that could affect the research process and results. Furthermore, it requires researchers to have a wide range of technical knowledge about the translation, adaptation and pre-test aspects, their purposes and options, about the different psychometric properties, and the required evidence for their assessment and knowledge about the quantitative data processing and analysis using statistical software. This article aimed: 1) identify all guidelines and recommendations for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation within the healthcare sciences; 2) describe the methodological approaches established in these guidelines for conducting translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation; and 3) provide a practical guideline featuring various methodological options for novice researchers involved in translating, adapting, and validating measurement instruments. Forty-two guidelines on translation, adaptation, or cross-cultural validation of measurement instruments were obtained from “CINAHL with Full Text” (via EBSCO) and “MEDLINE with Full Text”. A content analysis was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the methodological approaches recommended. Bases on these similarities and differences, we proposed an eight-step guideline that includes: a) forward translation; 2) synthesis of translations; 3) back translation; 4) harmonization; 5) pre-testing; 6) field testing; 7) psychometric validation, and 8) analysis of psychometric properties. It is a practical guideline because it provides extensive and comprehensive information on the methodological approaches available to researchers. This is the first methodological literature review carried out in the healthcare sciences regarding the methodological approaches recommended by existing guidelines.
“…8 Measurement instruments can include questionnaires, tests, rating scales and self-reports, 9 the latter being also known as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs). 10 In recent years we have conducted several cross-cultural validation studies of different measuring instruments, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] which constitute a significant contribution to the development of experimental designs in the field of nursing and health services research. Several studies across different scientific areas are characterized by the use of specific terminology and by seeking to archive various equivalences across cultures.…”
Cross-cultural validation of self-reported measurement instruments for research is a long and complex process, which involves specific risks of bias that could affect the research process and results. Furthermore, it requires researchers to have a wide range of technical knowledge about the translation, adaptation and pre-test aspects, their purposes and options, about the different psychometric properties, and the required evidence for their assessment and knowledge about the quantitative data processing and analysis using statistical software. This article aimed: 1) identify all guidelines and recommendations for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation within the healthcare sciences; 2) describe the methodological approaches established in these guidelines for conducting translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation; and 3) provide a practical guideline featuring various methodological options for novice researchers involved in translating, adapting, and validating measurement instruments. Forty-two guidelines on translation, adaptation, or cross-cultural validation of measurement instruments were obtained from “CINAHL with Full Text” (via EBSCO) and “MEDLINE with Full Text”. A content analysis was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the methodological approaches recommended. Bases on these similarities and differences, we proposed an eight-step guideline that includes: a) forward translation; 2) synthesis of translations; 3) back translation; 4) harmonization; 5) pre-testing; 6) field testing; 7) psychometric validation, and 8) analysis of psychometric properties. It is a practical guideline because it provides extensive and comprehensive information on the methodological approaches available to researchers. This is the first methodological literature review carried out in the healthcare sciences regarding the methodological approaches recommended by existing guidelines.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.