A Systematic Review of Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Instruments for the Selection of Assistive Technologies

Abstract

This article presents a systematic review, for which research was carried out in the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and ERIC, in which several articles were found (n = 560). The results were analyzed based on the information obtained in the titles and abstracts, and the remaining studies were read in full for the analysis. The aim of this article was to identify the different questionnaires used for selecting items of assistive technology, describe and evaluate the translation and transcultural adaptation procedures, characterize the thematic domains of each resource, evaluate the cultural adaptation process adopted, and describe the psychometric properties. Data extraction and evaluation of the methodological quality of the eligible studies were performed in accordance with the COSMIN verification list with a checklist of 4 points. The publication of systematic review studies and others that synthesize research results is fundamental to provide support for change in the behavior of professionals in the field of health, and not only to access the available literature but also to incorporate this information into daily clinical practice. The results of this review could provide subsidies that would enable the planning, execution, identification, and choice of specific instruments for a determined study within the context of assistive technology, with a view to helping researchers and health professionals in clinical and investigatory practices.

Cultural and contextual adaptation of mental health measures in Kenya: An adolescent-centered transcultural adaptation of measures study

“…Transcultural translation and adaptation (TTA) is recommended process of using existing tools in other cultures, languages, or geographical areas. Adapting an existing tool saves costs and time than developing a new tool [ 11 , 12 ]; it also reduces the complexity of creating a new tool [ 13 ]. Culturally adapted tools should produce a reliable and valid tool that does not deviate from the original tool and should enable comparison of results found in other regions [ 13 , 14 ].…”

“…Adapting an existing tool saves costs and time than developing a new tool [ 11 , 12 ]; it also reduces the complexity of creating a new tool [ 13 ]. Culturally adapted tools should produce a reliable and valid tool that does not deviate from the original tool and should enable comparison of results found in other regions [ 13 , 14 ]. In addition, multi-stakeholder inquiries involving representatives from different groups in the society are crucial as they bring different views that help tailor the tools to meet specific needs of the target group [ 15 ] and ensure that the tools are locally suitable and applicable [ 1 , 16 ].…”

The validation of organisational culture assessment instrument in healthcare setting: results from a cross-sectional study in Vietnam

“…Most of these studies did not clarify the way of each item in the OCAI was translated and the translated version was validated by which methods. When the OCAI is used in a different country, culture and sample from the original instrument, its psychometric properties, including reliability and validity, have to be re-examined [7]. Unfitting translation processes could lead to biased or misguided study outcomes [4,15].…”

Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale in a Large Sample of People With Neuromuscular, Neurological, or Hearing Disabilities

“…The PIADS scale has been translated to 19 languages, and it has been used in more than 120 scientific works to evaluate results derived from interventions with a huge variety of products and assistive technologies as well as a wide range of user profiles (Jutai, 2019 ). It also has proved to have good reliability and content validity, excellent internal consistency, and structural, cross-cultural, and criterion validity (de Lima Barroso et al, 2018 ), and seems to be powerful enough to predict assistive technology abandonment and retention (Day et al, 2001 , 2002 ).…”