Cross-cultural adaptation of the SCATBI instrument for cognitive-linguistic abilities after traumatic brain injury

Abstract

Objective To perform the cross-cultural adaptation of the “Scales of Cognitive Ability for Traumatic Brain Injury” (SCATBI).Method After the translation and back-translation phases, a multidisciplinary committee judged and elaborated versions in order to maintain its conceptual equivalence, content, comprehensibility and contextual adjustment for Brazilian population. The final version was tested on 55 healthy subjects.Results The individuals’ mean age was 41.75 ± 17.40 years (range = 18-81), 69% were women and they had a mean schooling of 12.96 ± 4.55 years. Higher total scores were positively correlated with years of schooling (p < 0.001) and social-economic status (p = 0.001), while older aged individuals performed worse than younger ones (p = 0.001). Both genders performed similarly on all domains of the instrument, except for “organization” ability, where women performed significantly better than men (p = 0.02).Conclusion The Brazilian version of SCATBI is a useful tool for the diagnosis and monitoring of cognitive impairments after a traumatic brain injury.

Cross-cultural adaptation of Rotter's General Locus of Control instrument

“…We followed the method established in previous successful cross-cultural translations of medical scales and questionnaires at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), 13 following the guidelines set out in the literature for such undertakings. 11 All procedures were in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki), and the study was only started after approval by the ethics committee for human research of UFSC.…”

“…Informed consent was obtained from all participants before their inclusion in the protocol. 13,14 In accordance with previously published guidelines, cross-cultural adaptation of the GLoC questionnaire included the following five steps: 1) translation; 2) back-translation; 3) review by an expert committee to ensure semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence; 4) testing of the pre-final version; and 5) analysis of the scores. 11,15,16 The original instrument was translated into to assess equality between those who took shorter and longer intervals to answer the second application, participants were divided into two groups, i.e., intervals ≤ 60 days and > 60 days.…”