Cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value

The development of the Dutch version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

“…Together with the three experts, discrepancies with the original version were discussed. After this expert committee review (Epstein et al, 2015), consensus was reached on a pre-final version of the Dutch FreBAQ. One Dutch-speaking translator was from The Netherlands, whereas the other three Dutch-speaking translators and two English speakers originated from Flanders (Belgium).…”

Adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de medida do cuidado centrado na família

“…This was a methodological study, in which the authors adopted steps internationally recommended for cross-cultural adaptation of measurement instruments, considering the rigorous process of testing and re-testing it requires, including (12,13) (Figure 1): (1) translation of the original English version of the instrument to Brazilian Portuguese by two bilingual translators; (2) back-translation of the instrument content to the original language; (3) review by the expert panel who analyzed the proposed version as for equivalences: semantic, idiomatic, cultural, conceptual, and items; (4) consensus and level of agreement among the experts in the comparisons of the versions of translation, back-translation and the original instrument; (5) pre-test applied to a group of individuals from the target population to assess comprehension of the instrument items; (6) test-retest applied to a group of individuals from the target population, in the interval of one week, to obtain agreement on stability; and (7) evaluation of the psychometric properties through reliability and validity tests. (14,15) Phases of pre-test, reliability and validity were conducted in a teaching hospital in the southern region of São Paulo, Brazil.…”

“…The final sample for the clinical application phase consisted of 200 subjects, in accordance with the recommendations for validation studies, which suggest at least five subjects multiplied by the number of variables in the instrument; (12) namely 100 healthcare professionals and 100 parents of children who were hospitalized in Surgical Pediatric, Medical Pediatric, Emergency Pediatric, Pediatric Intensive Care and Neonatal units and health professionals working in these wards ( Figure 1). During, the data collection, in the phase of content validity with the expert panel, the Delphi technique was applied to obtain a minimum level of agreement of 80% for each item.…”

“…(14) The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for each item to analyze the collected data in this phase, considering a minimum value between 80% and 85% to determine the reliability of the instrument as satisfactory. (14) The Kappa coefficient, (12,14) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (12) were used to assess the degree of agreement among the experts and to verify the stability and reproducibility of the instruments in the test and re-test phases.…”

“…(16) Internal consistency analysis by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) was used to calculate instrument reliability. (12) The level of significance for the tests was set at 5% (α = 0.05) and the statistical package used was SPSS for Windows, version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).…”