Emerging good practices for Translatability Assessment (TA) of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures

Acquadro, C.; Patrick, Donald L.; Eremenco, Sonya; Martin, Mona L.; Kuliš, Danijela; Correia, Helena; Conway, K

doi:10.1186/s41687-018-0035-8

Cited by 53 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Confirmation of construct equivalence is usually judged post translation by the statistical criteria of measurement equivalence or invariance [12][13][14][15][16][17]. However, threats to construct equivalence need to be minimised during the translation process [10,18,19]. Yet translation methods seldom tackle construct equivalence [20] and there is limited recommendation for the use of qualitative research methods to investigate ways to maximise construct equivalence during translation [3,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

Hawkins

Cheng

Elsworth

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cross-cultural research with patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assumes that the PROM in the target language will measure the same construct in the same way as the PROM in the source language. Yet translation methods are rarely used to qualitatively maximise construct equivalence or to describe the intents of each item to support common understanding within translation teams. This study aimed to systematically investigate the utility of the Translation Integrity Procedure (TIP), in particular the use of item intent descriptions, to maximise construct equivalence during the translation process, and to demonstrate how documented data from the TIP contributes evidence to a validity argument for construct equivalence between translated and source language PROMs. Methods: Analysis of secondary data was conducted on routinely collected data in TIP Management Grids of translations (n = 9) of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) that took place

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

Hawkins

Cheng

Elsworth

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Every new instrument should undergo a translatability assessment to reveal any problems in the item content when applied to other languages. 19 Based on the findings presented here, the BODY-Q had good translatability into a non-Anglo-Saxon language. Thus, the Finnish version of the BODY-Q instrument can be considered equivalent in terms of content, accuracy, and comprehensiveness to the original English version of the BODY-Q.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Validation of the Finnish version of the BODY-Q patient-reported outcome instrument among patients who underwent abdominoplasty

Repo

Homsy

Uimonen

et al. 2019

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Massive weight loss can notably affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and body image. Yet, no body contouring specific instruments to assess HRQoL and body image after massive weight loss have been validated in Finnish. The BODY-Q includes 26 independently functioning scales and a single checklist that measure appearance, HRQoL, and experience of care. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate a Finnish version of the BODY-Q among patients who underwent abdominoplasty. Methods: The BODY-Q was translated into Finnish using recommended guidelines. Eighty-two patients who underwent abdominoplasty due to massive weight loss were identified from hospital records using procedure codes. A postal survey including the BODY-Q, the 15D, and general health and pain instruments was used. Criterion validity, Cronbach's alpha, and floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Results: The BODY-Q translated well into Finnish. Fifty-three patients returned the questionnaires (response rate 65%) and were included. All but the Scars subscale correlated significantly with the 15D mean score, thus indicating strong criterion validity against a generic HRQoL tool. Please cite this article as: J.P. Repo, P. Homsy and M.M. Uimonen et al., Validation of the Finnish version of the BODY-Q patient-reported outcome instrument among patients who underwent abdominoplasty, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.02.017 2 J.P. Repo, P. Homsy and M.M. Uimonen et al. JID: PRAS [m6+;March 22, 2019;6:54 ] The Excess Skin and the Physical Function scales reached the ceiling effect ( > 15% of maximum points) in our postoperative sample. No floor effects were observed. Internal consistency of the BODY-Q scales was high (Cronbach's alpha range, 0.81-0.95). ARTICLE IN PRESS Conclusions:The Finnish version of the BODY-Q instrument is equivalent in terms of content, accuracy, and comprehensiveness to the original English version. The findings of the present study indicate that the BODY-Q has psychometric properties suitable for assessing outcomes and treatment effectiveness of abdominoplasty.

show abstract

“…This paper focused on good practice recommendations for translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of ObsRO, ClinRO, and PerfO measures. Translatability assessment was not addressed as it is a separate process conducted during instrument development that precedes the translation process outlined here [ 11 ]. The ISOQOL TCA-SIG has published emerging good practice recommendations for translatability assessment of PRO measures but did not have sufficient evidence to expand the recommendations to non-PRO COAs [ 11 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Translatability assessment was not addressed as it is a separate process conducted during instrument development that precedes the translation process outlined here [ 11 ]. The ISOQOL TCA-SIG has published emerging good practice recommendations for translatability assessment of PRO measures but did not have sufficient evidence to expand the recommendations to non-PRO COAs [ 11 ]. Although one would expect the process to align closely with that of PRO measures, the need for good practice recommendations for translatability assessment of non-PRO COAs remains to be addressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures

McKown

Acquadro²,

Anfray

et al. 2020

J Patient Rep Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within current literature and practice, the category of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been expanded into the broader category of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), which includes the subcategory of PRO, as well as clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO), observer-reported outcome (ObsRO), and performance outcome (PerfO) measure subcategories. However, despite this conceptual expansion, recommendations associated with translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of COAs remain focused on PRO measures, which has created a gap in specific process recommendations for the remaining types. This lack of recommendations has led to inconsistent approaches being implemented, leading to uncertainty in the scientific community regarding suitable methods. To address this gap, the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) has developed recommendations specific to each of the three COA types currently lacking such documentation to support a standardized approach to their translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation. The recommended process utilized to translate ObsRO, ClinRO and PerfO measures from one language to another aligns closely with the industry standard process for PRO measures. The substantial differences between respondent categories across COA types require targeted approaches to the cognitive interviewing procedures utilized within the linguistic validation process, including the use of patients for patient-facing text in ClinRO measures, and the need to interview the targeted observers for ObsROs measures.

show abstract

Emerging good practices for Translatability Assessment (TA) of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures

Cited by 53 publications

References 25 publications

Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

Validation of the Finnish version of the BODY-Q patient-reported outcome instrument among patients who underwent abdominoplasty

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About