Translation and Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Oral Health Literacy Assessment-Spanish to Brazilian Portuguese

Abstract

Objective: To translate the Spanish version of the instrument to measure oral health literacy-Oral Health Literacy Assessment-Spanish (OHLA-S)-into Portuguese (Brazilian) and perform their cross-cultural adaptation. Material and Methods: OHLA-S evaluates the level of oral health literacy from questions measuring pronunciation and comprehension skills of 30 dental terms concerning the etiology, anatomy, prevention and treatment of oral conditions. A committee of experts was created to evaluate all the steps of the process, right from the original version, through to the final one. The steps were: initial translation into Portuguese language by two Spanish teachers, backtranslation into Spanish by two native Spanish speaking, review by the committee, and pre-test. For the pre-test of cross-cultural adaptation, the alternative "did not understand" was added to each item of the tool. The instrument was applied to a sample of 20 adults. Results: In the initial translation, some differences were observed between the translated versions, and after the committee had reviewed these versions, a few words were replaced by other synonyms to enable better understanding of the instrument by the population. When the back-translation was compared with the original version, the results were very satisfactory and there was no need to make any further change or replacement. In the pre-test, the version of the tool Oral Health Literacy Assessment-Brazilian (OHLA-B) was very well understood by the studied population and there was no need for other cultural adaptations. Conclusion: OHLA-B proved to be easily understood by Brazilian adults and could be an important tool for measuring levels of oral health literacy.

Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: Assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties

“…A detailed description of the measurement tools is shown in Table 2. [28][29][30][31][32][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48], and only one study had examined the "decision-making" dimension [40]. Dimensions of evaluation, responsibility and interaction had not been measured in any instrument ( Table 3).…”

“…The results of methodological quality evaluation of the tools showed that, out of the 21 tools examined, 9 tools at least in one dimension were in the category of poor, which indicated the poor quality of that area [29-31, 33-37, 39, 45].The results of tool review using the COSMIN checklist showed that, 19 studies at least in one dimension had a "fair" quality, which indicated the suspected methodological quality [28,29,[31][32][33][34][35][36][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. Also, 20 and 4 articles at least in one dimension had a "good" [28,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] and "excellent" [33,35,43,44] quality, respectively.…”

Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: Assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties

“…Also a summary of the quality of the domains examined on the basis of a checklist COSMIN for oral health assessment tools reported in the Supplementary material 3. The results of methodological quality evaluation of the tools showed that, out of the 21 tools examined, 9 tools at least in one dimension were in the category of poor, which indicated the poor quality of that area [33-35, 37-41, 43, 49].The results of tool review using the COSMIN checklist showed that, 19 studies at least in one dimension had a "fair" quality, which indicated the suspected methodological quality [32,33,[35][36][37][38][39][40][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. Also, 20 and 4 articles at least in one dimension had a "good" [32,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] and "excellent" [37,39,47,…”

“…Four tools, by examining seven domains, had paid the most attention to the domains in the psychometric section [39,45,[47][48][49], and the two tools of ToFHLiD and OHLA-B had evaluated the minimum domains in the COSMIN checklist [33,50].…”

“…In the area of internal consistency, all tools were evaluated except for three tools [36,42,50]. The range of Cronbach alpha score in the reviewed studies varied from 0.63 [33] to 0.91 [48].…”