2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-018-4197-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Osteoarthritis Quality of Life (OAQoL) questionnaire for use in Portugal

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Monolingual subjects with different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds are members of the lay panel assessing the appropriateness of the translated version in terms of understandability and comprehensiveness. 25 Despite reports that this translation method has fewer missing items, the higher dedicated time for implementation and the need for combining backward translation prompted us to utilize the forward-backward method. 26 Furthermore, our participants declared that the items were easy to understand, and the total questionnaire had enough question length.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Monolingual subjects with different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds are members of the lay panel assessing the appropriateness of the translated version in terms of understandability and comprehensiveness. 25 Despite reports that this translation method has fewer missing items, the higher dedicated time for implementation and the need for combining backward translation prompted us to utilize the forward-backward method. 26 Furthermore, our participants declared that the items were easy to understand, and the total questionnaire had enough question length.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Closer inspection of the descriptive statistics showed that there were no marked differences in the variability of scores between the two groups. Therefore, it is not [29][30][31]). Further research is required to understand what may have contributed to the differences in these results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%