Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures

Beaton, Dorcas; Bombardier, Claire; Guillemin, Françis; Ferraz, Marcos Bosi

doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

Cited by 10,207 publications

(11,728 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

8,901

Contrasting

Unclassified

1,724

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers have stressed the importance of a methodologically sound process to derive an appropriate and cross-culturally valid instrument in different languages (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000; Brislin, 1970; Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973; Jones & Kay, 1992; Maneesriwongul & Dixon, 2004; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011; Sperber, 2004). According to Beaton et al (2000) a proper adaptation process at least involves the following steps: multiple translations in the target language (TL), synthesis of the translations, back-translations to the source language (SL), consultation of an expert committee review, a test of the pre-final version, and submission of the documentation to the authors of the original instrument.…”

Section: Development Of the Dutch Caps-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Beaton et al (2000) a proper adaptation process at least involves the following steps: multiple translations in the target language (TL), synthesis of the translations, back-translations to the source language (SL), consultation of an expert committee review, a test of the pre-final version, and submission of the documentation to the authors of the original instrument.…”

Section: Development Of the Dutch Caps-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to a linguistically accurate translation of the CAPS-5 that would correspond to the official Dutch translation of the DSM-5 ensuring content validity, it was deemed important to create a translation that would optimally fit into clinical and research practice. This led to the development and realization of a novel stepped crowd-translation process to engender the Dutch CAPS-5, which involved a crowd of Dutch psychotrauma professionals (clinicians as well as researchers) and was based on the principles of a cross-cultural adaptation process (Beaton et al, 2000) as well as the Delphi method (Dalkey, 1969; Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Hsu & Sandford, 2007) for consensus-building by expert-rounds. This process encompassed six translation steps that were carried out to develop the Dutch version of the CAPS-5 (Figure 1).…”

Section: Development Of the Dutch Caps-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper describes an innovative approach of translation to ensure cross-cultural validity of diagnostic instruments using a combination of principles of a cross-cultural adaptation process (Beaton et al, 2000) and the Delphi method (Dalkey, 1969; Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Hsu & Sandford, 2007). By involving multiple experts in different rounds the employed approach of translation was instrumental in achieving an instrument that was broadly supported among experts.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)

Boeschoten

Bakker

et al. 2018

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In 2013, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the golden standard to assess PTSD, was adapted to the DSM-5 (CAPS-5).Objective: This project aimed to develop a clinically relevant Dutch translation of the CAPS-5 and to investigate its psychometric properties.Method: We conducted a stepped translation including Delphi rounds with a crowd of 44 Dutch psychotrauma experts and five senior psychotrauma experts. Using partial crowd-translations, two professional translations and the official Dutch translation of the DSM-5, each senior expert aggregated one independent translation. Consensus was reached plenary. After back-translation, comparison with the original CAPS-5 and field testing, a last round with the senior experts resulted in the final version. After implementation clinicians conducted CAPS-5 interviews with 669 trauma-exposed individuals referred for specialized diagnostic assessment. Reliability of the Dutch CAPS-5 was investigated through internal consistency and interrater reliability analyses, and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).Results: CAPS-5 total severity score showed high internal consistency (α = .90) and interrater reliability (ICC = .98, 95% CI: .94–.99). CAPS-5 diagnosis showed modest interrater reliability (kappa = .59, 95% CI: .20–.98). CFA with alternative PTSD models revealed adequate support for the DSM-5 four-factor model, but a six-factor (Anhedonia) model fit the data best.Conclusions: The Dutch CAPS-5 is a carefully translated instrument with adequate psychometric properties. Current results add to the growing support for more refined (six and seven) factor models for DSM-5 PTSD indicating that the validity and clinical implications of these models should be objective of further research.

show abstract

Section: Development Of the Dutch Caps-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Development Of the Dutch Caps-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Development Of the Dutch Caps-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)

Boeschoten

Bakker

et al. 2018

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We followed a standardized approach [32]. Two translators, a professional translator not knowledgeable about supervision and someone who had published articles about health care supervision in Rwanda, did the translation of items into Kinyarwanda.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of the ExPRESS instrument for primary health care providers’ evaluation of external supervision

Schriver

Cubaka

Vedsted

et al. 2018

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: External supervision of primary health care facilities to monitor and improve services is common in low-income countries. Currently there are no tools to measure the quality of support in external supervision in these countries. Aim: To develop a provider-reported instrument to assess the support delivered through external supervision in Rwanda and other countries. Methods: “External supervision: Provider Evaluation of Supervisor Support” (ExPRESS) was developed in 18 steps, primarily in Rwanda. Content validity was optimised using systematic search for related instruments, interviews, translations, and relevance assessments by international supervision experts as well as local experts in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Construct validity and reliability were examined in two separate field tests, the first using exploratory factor analysis and a test–retest design, the second for confirmatory factor analysis. Results: We included 16 items in section A (‘The most recent experience with an external supervisor’), and 13 items in section B (‘The overall experience with external supervisors’). Item-content validity index was acceptable. In field test I, test–retest had acceptable kappa values and exploratory factor analysis suggested relevant factors in sections A and B used for model hypotheses. In field test II, models were tested by confirmatory factor analysis fitting a 4-factor model for section A, and a 3-factor model for section B. Conclusions: ExPRESS is a promising tool for evaluation of the quality of support of primary health care providers in external supervision of primary health care facilities in resource-constrained settings. ExPRESS may be used as specific feedback to external supervisors to help identify and address gaps in the supervision they provide. Further studies should determine optimal interpretation of scores and the number of respondents needed per supervisor to obtain precise results, as well as test the functionality of section B.

show abstract

'Deradiating' the Former Uranium Capital

Merz¹

1987

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE URANIUM ATOM that once hovered over a mountaintop has disappeared from the seal of the city of Grand Junction, Colo. In its place is a setting sun.The substitution is telling. The city that once proclaimed itself "The Uranium Capital of America" is in the process of divorcing itself from the radioactive element\p=m-\literally as well as symbolically. The last vestiges of uranium are being shoveled from the community.The removal is part of the federal Department of Energy's (DOE) Remedial Action Program. It was established in 1972 to clean up areas of the country in which radiation exposure in excess of normal background levels could be attributed to wastes from DOE-operated uranium processing plants.Grand Junction was the first area to

show abstract

Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures

Cited by 10,207 publications

References 21 publications

Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)

Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)

Development and validation of the ExPRESS instrument for primary health care providers’ evaluation of external supervision

'Deradiating' the Former Uranium Capital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About