Taiwanese Chinese translation and validation of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis 31 (QUALEFFO-31)

Li, Weichun; Chen, Yi-Chan; Yang, Rong‐Sen; Kuo, Ken N.; Chen, Ching-Yu; Tsauo, Jau-Yih

doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2012.09.015

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, Li et al . ). Back translation : Two bilingual scholars without a medical background (Bruyère et al . , Li et al .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Li et al . ) back‐translated the questionnaire from Chinese to English, one translator having obtained a degree in linguistics in Australia and the other was a Singaporean graduate student, translated the synthesised Chinese version back into English. The main purpose of the back translation is to determine whether the back‐translated version and the synthesised Chinese version are the same in terms of the linguistic content and meaning. Expert committee review : In terms of the item contents in the questionnaire, the importance, suitability, appropriateness and clarity of phrasing of every item were made, and appropriate changes were made considering differences in life experiences and the cultures in the West and the East.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The notion of cultural adaption has been put into consideration. The detailed steps (Bruy ere et al 2012, Li et al 2013 were as follows ( Fig. 1).…”

Section: The Verification Of the Pccq -Chinese Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After that, the researcher (corresponding author) integrated the translation after careful consideration and finally completed a written report (Bruy ere et al 2012, Li et al 2013. 3 Back translation: Two bilingual scholars without a medical background (Bruy ere et al 2012, Li et al 2013 back-translated the questionnaire from Chinese to English, one translator having obtained a degree in linguistics in Australia and the other was a Singaporean graduate student, translated the synthesised Chinese version back into English. The main purpose of the back translation is to determine whether the back-translated version and the synthesised Chinese version are the same in terms of the linguistic content and meaning.…”

Section: The Verification Of the Pccq -Chinese Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Chinese version of the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire: reliability and validity assessment

Chen

2017

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Li et al . ). Back translation : Two bilingual scholars without a medical background (Bruyère et al . , Li et al .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The notion of cultural adaption has been put into consideration. The detailed steps (Bruy ere et al 2012, Li et al 2013 were as follows ( Fig. 1).…”

Section: The Verification Of the Pccq -Chinese Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Verification Of the Pccq -Chinese Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Chinese version of the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire: reliability and validity assessment

Chen

2017

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This questionnaire was primarily developed for patients with osteoporosis and associated vertebral fractures. However, in the years that followed, this questionnaire was used in patients with osteoporosis without vertebral fracture, and its reliability was demonstrated [ 10 – 12 ]. QUALEFFO-41 includes many questions and takes a long time to complete, which has revealed the requirement for a shorter and more practical version.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-31 (QUALEFFO-31)

Ince

Küçükakkaş

2021

Arch Osteoporos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This study reveals the Turkish version of QUALEFFO-31 has a sufficient level of reliability, validity, and psychometric properties. The questionnaire, which is potentially capable of differentiating patients with fractures, does not appear to have the differential capacity in terms of osteoporosis. Purpose This study aims to conduct the reliability and validity study of QUALEFFO-31 in Turkish and to evaluate the capacity of the questionnaire to distinguish patients in terms of osteoporosis. Methods The original English version was translated into Turkish by two translators whose native language was Turkish. Subsequently, this Turkish version was translated back into English by two different bilingual translators whose native language was English. After this preliminary questionnaire was tested in 30 patients, words, terminology, information errors, and parts difficult to understand were revised, and the questionnaire was finalized. Internal consistency and test–retest analyses were used for the reliability study. For the validity study, convergent-discriminant validity, concurrent validity, factor analysis, known-group validity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed. Results A total of 111 patients were evaluated. Internal consistency levels were optimal except for the mental function. ICC coefficients showed good retest reliability for all domains and total tests. The convergent and discriminant validity ratios for the mental function domain were 78% for both and 100% for the other domains. There was a moderate and good negative correlation between QUALEFFO-31 and SF-36 domains which had similar names. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 3 structures. However, there was a spread to the other factors in physical function domain items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) markers were not at a very good fitting level except for the relative chi-square index. When CFA was performed according to the assumed model, the fitting level increased in all analyses. There was no significant differential capacity in terms of osteoporosis or fracture for either QUALEFFO-31 or SF-36. Conclusion The Turkish version of QUALEFFO-31 has a sufficient level of reliability, validity, and psychometric properties. Nevertheless, improvements in pain and mental function domains and some changes applying to the model may increase the psychometric capacity of the questionnaire. The questionnaire, which is potentially capable of differentiating patients with fractures, does not appear to have the differential capacity in terms of osteoporosis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04259099 (date of registration: February 6, 2020) Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11657-021-00997-4.

show abstract

Validation of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-26) in Korean population

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the adapted Korean version of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-26). Translation/retranslation of the English version of QUALEFFO was conducted, and all steps of the cross-cultural adaptation process were performed. The Korean version of the visual analog scale measure of pain, QUALEFFO-26 and the previously validated Short Form-36 (SF-36) were mailed to 162 consecutive patients with osteoporosis. Factor analysis and reliability assessment by kappa statistics of agreement for each item, the intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach's α were conducted. Construct validity was also evaluated by comparing the responses of QUALEFFO-26 with the responses of SF-36 using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Factor analysis extracted 3 factors. All items had a kappa statistics of agreement greater than 0.6. The QUALEFFO-26 showed good test/retest reliability (QUALEFFO-26: 0.8271). Internal consistency of Cronbach's α was found to be very good (QUALEFFO-26: 0.873). The Korean version of QUALEFFO-26 showed good significant correlation with SF-36 total score and with single SF-36 domains scores. The adapted Korean version of the QUALEFFO-26 was successfully translated and showed acceptable measurement properties and, as such, is considered suitable for outcome assessments in the Korean-speaking patients with osteoporosis.

show abstract

Taiwanese Chinese translation and validation of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis 31 (QUALEFFO-31)

Abstract: The Taiwanese Chinese version of the QUALEFFO-31 is reliable and valid. We recommend this tool for evaluating participants with low bone mass in Taiwan. Further tests should be conducted to confirm the use of this questionnaire in clinical practice.

Cited by 11 publications

References 21 publications

A Chinese version of the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire: reliability and validity assessment

A Chinese version of the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire: reliability and validity assessment

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-31 (QUALEFFO-31)

Validation of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-26) in Korean population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About