Translation, validity and reliability of the British Sign Language (BSL) version of the EQ-5D-5L

Rogers, Katherine; Pilling, Mark; Davies, Linda; Belk, Rachel; Nassimi-Green, Catherine; Young, Alys

doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1235-4

Cited by 33 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We note that publishing without ND, appears to be a common practice in those Open Access articles cited in our review (e.g. Caporali et al 2016;Rogers et al 2016;Wrzosek et al 2016). Putting the translated instrument out in the public domain, such as a website, yields the same loss of control over usage even if the version is watermarked with ''do not copy'' (e.g.…”

Section: Item 6d Finalise and Archive A Reportmentioning

confidence: 83%

A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures

Hall

Domingo²,

Hamdache

et al. 2017

International Journal of Audiology

133

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To raise awareness and propose a good practice guide for translating and adapting any hearing-related questionnaire to be used for comparisons across populations divided by language or culture, and to encourage investigators to publish detailed steps. Design: From a synthesis of existing guidelines, we propose important considerations for getting started, followed by six early steps: (1) Preparation, (2, 3) Translation steps, (4) Committee Review, (5) Field testing and (6) Reviewing and finalising the translation. Study sample: Not applicable. Results: Across these six steps, 22 different items are specified for creating a questionnaire that promotes equivalence to the original by accounting for any cultural differences. Published examples illustrate how these steps have been implemented and reported, with shared experiences from the authors, members of the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus research NETwork. Conclusions: A checklist of the preferred reporting items is included to help researchers and clinicians make informed choices about conducting or omitting any items. We also recommend using the checklist to document these decisions in any resulting report or publication. Following this step-by-step guide would promote quality assurance in multinational trials and outcome evaluations but, to confirm functional equivalence, large-scale evaluation of psychometric properties should follow.

show abstract

Section: Item 6d Finalise and Archive A Reportmentioning

confidence: 83%

A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures

Hall

Domingo²,

Hamdache

et al. 2017

International Journal of Audiology

133

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…experiencing a lack of motivation to socialise and meet people may be not as a result of feeling depressed, but rather be a response to many Deaf people’s normal experiences of social contexts where most of the hearing people within them are unable to communicate in BSL ([13] p117). This hypothesis is lent support in a validation study of the BSL version of EQ-5D-5 L (health questionnaire) [37], where a small number of Deaf people were interviewed to find out how they understood key terms contained within EQ-5D-5 L BSL. This revealed that everyday experiences of communication barriers could affect the conceptualisation of key terms e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

The theoretical and practical determination of clinical cut-offs for the British Sign Language versions of PHQ-9 and GAD-7

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe PHQ-9 and the GAD-7 assess depression and anxiety respectively. There are standardised, reliability-tested versions in BSL (British Sign Language) that are used with Deaf users of the IAPT service. The aim of this study is to determine their appropriate clinical cut-offs when used with Deaf people who sign and to examine the operating characteristics for PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL with a clinical Deaf population.MethodsTwo datasets were compared: (i) dataset (n = 502) from a specialist IAPT service for Deaf people; and (ii) dataset (n = 85) from our existing study of Deaf people who self-reported having no mental health difficulties. Parameter estimates, with the precision of AUC value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (ppv) and negative predicted value (npv), were carried out to provide the details of the clinical cut-offs. Three statistical choices were included: Maximising (Youden: maximising sensitivity + specificity), Equalising (Sensitivity = Specificity) and Prioritising treatment (False Negative twice as bad as False Positive). Standard measures (as defined by IAPT) were applied to examine caseness, recovery, reliable change and reliable recovery for the first dataset.ResultsThe clinical cut-offs for PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL are 8 and 6 respectively. This compares with the original English version cut-offs in the hearing population of 10 and 8 respectively. The three different statistical choices for calculating clinical cut-offs all showed a lower clinical cut-off for the Deaf population with respect to the PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL with the exception of the Maximising criteria when used with the PHQ-9 BSL. Applying the new clinical cut-offs, the percentage of Deaf BSL IAPT service users showing reliable recovery is 54.0 % compared to 63.7 % using the cut-off scores used for English speaking hearing people. These compare favourably with national IAPT data for the general population.ConclusionsThe correct clinical cut-offs for the PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL enable meaningful measures of clinical effectiveness and facilitate appropriate access to treatment when required.

show abstract

“…This analysis included participants' sociodemographic characteristics, but excluded the other health measures associated with the presence or absence of depression (p < 0.07; logistic regression, results reported in the Rogers et al study 130 ). The results indicate that those people who did not have depression had a higher utility value than those who did (coefficient 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.21; p = 0.029; n = 66).…”

Section: Eq-5d-5l Translation and Validation In Bsl (Study 4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…133 The EQ-5D-5L was translated into BSL and validated (see Chapter 6); this study concluded that it is a reliable measure of health status in the Deaf signing population in the UK. 130 The utility values used are reported in Chapter 6. The data from the translation and validation study were used to calculate EQ-5D utility values for the depression and remission health states included in the model.…”

Section: Utility Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of British Sign Language Improving Access to Psychological Therapies: an exploratory study

Young

Rogers

Davies

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImproving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved approach to intervention for depression and/or anxiety. This exploratory study sets the groundwork for comparing psychological therapies for Deaf sign language users experiencing anxiety and/or depression, delivered in British Sign Language (BSL) by a Deaf therapist with usual access through an interpreter within the IAPT national programme.Objectives(1) To explore the following questions: (a) is BSL-IAPT more effective than standard IAPT for Deaf people with anxiety and/or depression? and (b) is any additional benefit from BSL-IAPT worth any additional cost to provide it? (2) To establish relevant BSL versions of assessment tools and methods to answer research questions (a) and (b). (3) To gauge the feasibility of a larger-scale definitive study and to inform its future design.DesignA mixed-methods exploratory study combing an economic model to synthesise data from multiple sources; a qualitative study of understanding and acceptability of randomisation and trial terminology; statistical determination of clinical cut-off points of standardised assessments in BSL; secondary data analysis of anonymised IAPT client records; realist inquiry incorporating interviews with service providers and survey results.SettingsIAPT service providers (NHS and private); the Deaf community.ParticipantsDeaf people who use BSL and who are clients of IAPT services (n = 502); healthy Deaf volunteers (n = 104); IAPT service providers (NHS and private) (n = 118).InterventionsIAPT at steps 2 and 3.Main outcome measuresReliable recovery and reliable improvement defined by IAPT; Deaf community views on the acceptability of randomisation; BSL terminology for trial-related language; clinical cut-off measurements for the BSL versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items (PHQ-9) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); a valid BSL version of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L); costs, quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Data sourcesIAPT service provider anonymised records of the characteristics and clinical outcomes of Deaf BSL users of BSL-IAPT and of standard IAPT; published literature.ResultsRandomisation may be acceptable to Deaf people who use IAPT if linguistic and cultural requirements are addressed. Specifications for effective information in BSL for recruitment have been established. A valid EQ-5D-5L in BSL has been produced. The clinical cut-off point for the GAD-7 BSL is 6 and for the PHQ-9 BSL is 8. No significant difference in rates of reliable recovery and reliable improvement between Deaf users of standard IAPT or BSL-IAPT has been found. Whether or not BSL-IAPT is more cost-effective than standard IAPT is uncertain.LimitationsThe small number of participating standard IAPT services who have seen Deaf clients means that there is statistical uncertainty in the comparable clinical outcome result. Clinical cut-off scores have not been verified through gold standard clinical interview methodology. Limited data availability means that whether or not BSL-IAPT is more cost-effective than standard IAPT is uncertain.ConclusionsThere is a lack of evidence to definitively compare reliable recovery and reliable improvement between Deaf users of standard IAPT and BSL-IAPT. Instrumentation and prerequisites for a larger-scale study have been established.Future workA prospective observational study for definitive results is justified.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Translation, validity and reliability of the British Sign Language (BSL) version of the EQ-5D-5L

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures

A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures

The theoretical and practical determination of clinical cut-offs for the British Sign Language versions of PHQ-9 and GAD-7

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of British Sign Language Improving Access to Psychological Therapies: an exploratory study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About