Multilingual cross-cultural adaptation of the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) into Czech, French, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Russian and Ukrainian

Goldhahn, Jörg; Shisha, Tamás; MacDermid, Joy C.; Goldhahn, Sabine

doi:10.1007/s00402-013-1694-9

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar modifications were reported in other non-English versions, suggesting that some predictable cultural changes can be expected when converting patient questionnaires. 17 We predicted a direct correlation between PRWE-S and the Quick DASH and expected a Spearman coefficient of at least 0.7. The PRWE-S achieved a coefficient of 0.75, which demonstrates good criterion validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation: Spanish Version and Evaluation of Its Psychometric Properties in Patients with Acute Distal Radius Fracture

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to validate a Spanish version of patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and evaluate its psychometric attributes in a population of patients with distal radius fracture. A translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PRWE to Spanish (PRWE-S) was performed according to standardized guidelines. A total of 50 patients with a distal radius fracture were included during the different steps of the study. The reliability of the new instrument was assessed in terms of construct validity with the Quick DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand). Internal consistency and test-retest stability were also examined. The Spearman's correlation test for analysis of the criterion validity (0.75) indicates a strong positive correlation between the PRWE-S and the Quick DASH. The internal consistency according to Cronbach's α was 0.96, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was moderate (0.46). A Spanish version of the PRWE indicated good validity and reliability in distal radius fracture patients. This valuable tool can be used in Spanish-speaking countries to evaluate various aspects as pain and function in patients with injuries of the wrist.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation: Spanish Version and Evaluation of Its Psychometric Properties in Patients with Acute Distal Radius Fracture

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, many PROMs are translated into multiple languages. The PRWE has been correctly translated into 14 languages, following the translation process described by Beaton et al 50 Nevertheless, we only found cross-cultural validity studies for the Swedish, Hindi, Korean and Danish versions, because the other translated versions were not adequately evaluated. However, our search was limited to English, German and Dutch, so it can be assumed that the cross-cultural validity was evaluated but the results were not published in any of these languages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?

Kleinlugtenbelt

Nienhuis

Bhandari

et al. 2016

Bone & Joint Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.ResultsIn all, 19 out of 1508 identified unique studies were included, in which 12 PROMs were rated. The Patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated on most measurement properties. The evidence for the PRWE is moderate that its reliability, validity (content and hypothesis testing), and responsiveness are good. The evidence is limited that its internal consistency and cross-cultural validity are good, and its measurement error is acceptable. There is no evidence for its structural and criterion validity. The evidence for the DASH is moderate that its responsiveness is good. The evidence is limited that its reliability and the validity on hypothesis testing are good. There is no evidence for the other measurement properties.ConclusionAccording to this systematic review, there is, at best, moderate evidence that the responsiveness of the PRWE and DASH are good, as are the reliability and validity of the PRWE. We recommend these PROMs in clinical studies in patients with distal radial fractures; however, more clinimetric studies of higher methodological quality are needed to adequately determine the other measurement properties.Cite this article: Dr Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?: A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:153–161. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.

show abstract

“…The authors of the present study are not aware of a systematic comparison of the published translations of the CORE-OM so far. Goldhahn, Shisha, Macdermid, and Goldhahn (2013)…”

Section: Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of the present study are not aware of a systematic comparison of the published translations of the CORE‐OM so far. Goldhahn, Shisha, Macdermid, and Goldhahn () emphasized the importance of “appropriately translated instruments” for “international multicentre studies; or inclusion of people with different cultural backgrounds in national trials” (p. 591). Because the CORE‐OM will be used for international comparisons, we require empirical evidence that the translations can be considered equivalent from a psychometric point of view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing outcomes: The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation from an international point of view

Zeldovich

Alexandrowicz

2019

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE‐OM) is a freely accessible self‐assessment questionnaire with a total of 34 items measuring the progress of psychological or psychotherapeutic treatments according to four scales (well‐being, problems, functioning, and risk). The CORE‐OM originated in the United Kingdom and has been translated into 54 languages and dialects. The aim of this study is to systematically compare the translated versions.MethodA total of 21 translations were compared using methods of systematic review and meta‐analysis.ResultsThe results show a certain heterogeneity between the studies; however, the 21 translations can be declared as equivalent.ConclusionThe factorial structure could not be replicated in any of translations. Therefore, further analysis of the CORE‐OM domains is recommended. In addition, some supplementary restrictions on the translation process, data collection, and reporting of results are necessary to ensure comparability and quality of CORE‐OM translations.

show abstract

Multilingual cross-cultural adaptation of the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) into Czech, French, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Russian and Ukrainian

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation: Spanish Version and Evaluation of Its Psychometric Properties in Patients with Acute Distal Radius Fracture

Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation: Spanish Version and Evaluation of Its Psychometric Properties in Patients with Acute Distal Radius Fracture

Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?

Comparing outcomes: The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation from an international point of view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About