Cultural adaptation and content validity of a Chinese translation of the ‘Person-Centered Primary Care Measure’: findings from cognitive debriefing

Abstract

ObjectivesTo develop an equivalent Chinese translation of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) and to establish its cultural adaptability and content validity through cognitive debriefing.DesignThe original English PCPCM was first translated into Chinese by double forward-translation by professional translators. The reconciliated Chinese version was then doubly back-translated into English by two other professional translators blinded to the forward-translation. On affirmation on its linguistic equivalence with the developers of the original English PCPCM, the reconciliated Chinese PCPCM was sent for cognitive debriefing with 20 Chinese-speaking primary care subjects by a trained interviewer using structured probing questions to collect their opinions on the clarity, comprehensibility and relevance of each item and response option in the Measure.SettingSubjects were invited from a primary care clinic in Hong Kong to undergo the cognitive debriefing interviews. The interviews were divided into four groups chronologically to allow revision of the items to be made in between.ParticipantsTen males and 10 females above the age of 18 completed the cognitive interviews. They were all Cantonese-speaking Chinese recruited by convenience sampling. Subjects with cognitive impairment, could not read Chinese, too old or too sick to complete the interviews were excluded from the study.ResultsAn average of 3.3 min (range 3–4 min) was required for the subjects to self-complete the Measure. All items were generally perceived to be easily understood and relevant. Modifications were made to items with the content validity index (CVI) on clarity or understanding <0.8 in each round of the interviews or if a majority of the subjects suggested rewording. Revisions were made to two items in the Chinese PCPCM throughout the whole cognitive debriefing process before the final version was confirmed. The average CVI on clarity of the Chinese PCPCM items ranged from 0.75 to 1. The average CVI on understanding ranged from 0.7 to 1. The average CVI on relevance ranged from 0.55 to 1.ConclusionsThe content validity of the PCPCM was ascertained in terms of its clarity, understandability and relevance to allow further testing of its psychometric properties in a larger Chinese population.

Exploration of the psychometric properties of the Person-Centred Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in a Chinese primary care population in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional validation study

“…The strength of the study is that the translation equivalence and content validity of the Chinese PCPCM was assured by a previous study by the same team. 6 …”

“…The strength of the study is that the translation equivalence and content validity of the Chinese PCPCM was assured by a previous study by the same team. 6 This current study demonstrated that Chinese patients aged from 18 to 85 years, of either sex and with varying education levels could understand, correctly interpret and respond to all the items of the Chinese PCPCM. The Chinese PCPCM showed good construct validity as indicated by the Rasch analysis showing unidimensionality structure with all items loading on one factor, good item fit, excellent person reliability and item reliability.…”

“…This is actually coherent with the findings of our previous cognitive debriefing study of the Chinese translation of the PCPCM in which the average content validity index on relevance of items eight and nine were both relatively low at 0.55. 6 …”

“…We had developed a Chinese translation of the PCPCM ( online supplemental file 2 ) and confirmed its content validity through cognitive debriefing in an earlier study. 6 The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and psychometric properties of the PCPCM among Chinese patients in a clinical setting.…”

Development of the Japanese Version of the Infertility Stigma Scale: Examination of Its Reliability and Validity

“…As a pilot application and following empirical literature, the scale was administered to eight married women with no children [ 37 , 38 ]. Before the interviews, an interview guide was developed by referring to previous studies [ 32 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] ( Table A3 ). The interviews were conducted online to prevent COVID-19 infection.…”