The Brazilian Portuguese Version of the DISCERN Instrument: Translation Procedures and Psychometric Properties

Logullo, Patrícia; Torloni, Maria Regina; Latorraca, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz; Riera, Rachel

doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2019.09.001

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the aforementioned studies reporting interrater agreement, DISCERN translated and adapted into other languages exhibited fair to nearly complete interrater agreement. The discrepancies in Cohen κ values revealed that raters' health and medical qualifications seemed to be adversely proportional to the interrater agreement: McCool et al [3], Batchelor and Ohya [58], and this study all invited health educators or experts as raters, each resulting in a Cohen κ value for moderate interrater agreement, whereas Logullo et al [28] used journalism students as raters, obtaining a Cohen κ value for nearly complete interrater agreement. However, we can only tentatively draw this conclusion, which needs to be further verified in future research.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…The total score that a publication can obtain ranges from 16 to 80. On the basis of the overall scores obtained, the quality of a publication is rated as very poor (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26), poor (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38), fair (39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50), good (51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62), and excellent (63-80) [16,43].…”

Section: The Discern Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McCool et al [3] investigated the reliability of DISCERN for assessing the quality of information available to German patients with eczema, obtaining a Cohen κ value of 0.59 (95% CI 0.477-0.709). Logullo et al [28] translated DISCERN into Brazilian Portuguese and tested its psychometric properties, obtaining a Cohen κ value of 0.85 (95% CI 0.717-0.912) for interrater agreement. Montoya et al [29] merely translated DISCERN into Spanish and rated the comparability, interpretability, and understandability of the translated tool without testing its psychometric properties.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although DISCERN was used in German-, French-, Dutch-, Chinese-, and Iranian-speaking communities [23][24][25][26][27], it has mostly been adopted in English-speaking countries [3]. It has been translated and adapted into Brazilian Portuguese [28], Spanish [29], and German [30] and validated in these languages, but no Chinese version of DISCERN is currently available in Chinese-speaking societies. We need to develop a simplified Chinese version of DISCERN for the following reasons: (1) very few English-language health information assessment scales have been translated and adapted into simplified Chinese tools;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Translating and Adapting the DISCERN Instrument Into a Simplified Chinese Version and Validating Its Reliability: Development and Usability Study

Shan¹,

Xing²,

Dong³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a wide variation in the quality of information available to patients on the treatment of the diseases afflicting them. To help patients find clear and accessible information, many scales have been designed to evaluate the quality of health information, including the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool; the Suitability Assessment of Materials for evaluation of health-related information for adults; and DISCERN, an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. These instruments are primarily in English. Few of them have been translated and adapted into simplified Chinese tools for health information assessment in China. Objective This study aimed to translate and adapt DISCERN into the first simplified Chinese version and validate the psychometric properties of this newly developed scale for judging the quality of patient-oriented health information on treatment choices. Methods First, we translated DISCERN into simplified Chinese using rigorous guidelines for translation and validation studies. We tested the translation equivalence and measured the content validity index. We then presented the simplified Chinese instrument to 3 health educators and asked them to use it to assess the quality of 15 lung cancer–related materials. We calculated the Cohen κ coefficient and Cronbach α for all items and for the entire scale to determine the reliability of the new tool. Results We decided on the simplified Chinese version of the DISCERN instrument (C-DISCERN) after resolving all problems in translation, adaptation, and content validation. The C-DISCERN was valid and reliable: the content validity index was 0.98 (47/48, 98% of the items) for clarity and 0.94 (45/48, 94% of the items) for relevance, the Cronbach α for internal consistency was .93 (95% CI 0.699-1.428) for the whole translated scale, and the Cohen κ coefficient for internal consistency was 0.53 (95% CI 0.417-0.698). Conclusions C-DISCERN is the first simplified Chinese version of the DISCERN instrument. Its validity and reliability have been attested to assess the quality of patient-targeted information for treatment choices.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: The Discern Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Translating and Adapting the DISCERN Instrument Into a Simplified Chinese Version and Validating Its Reliability: Development and Usability Study

Shan¹,

Xing²,

Dong³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DISCERN and EQUIP are used to measure the perceived quality of written health-related information, including its graphical presentation (for EQUIP), as seen by patients and/or by healthcare professionals, but they are not specific for evaluating package leaflets. 8,9 In contrast, other tools such as the Consumer Information…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a new tool for evaluating subjects’ satisfaction with medicine package leaflets: a cross-sectional descriptive study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Package leaflets of medicines need to be intelligible, but tools for their evaluation are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To validate a new tool for assessing subjects' satisfaction with medicine package leaflets (LiS-RPL). DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in two regions of Portugal (Lisbon and Centre). METHODS: 503 participants (53.1% male) were selected according to convenience and homogenously distributed into three groups: 1 to 6; 7 to 12; and > 12 years of schooling. LiS-RPL was developed based on international regulation guidelines and was initially composed of 14 items. Twelve package leaflets were tested. Dimensionality calculations included: exploratory factor analysis and minimum rank factor analysis; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index and Bartlett's sphericity test to assess matrix adequacy for exploratory factor analysis; exploratory bifactor analysis with Schmid-Leiman solution to detect possible existence of a broad second-order factor; and Bentler's Simplicity Index and Loading Simplicity Index to assess factor simplicity. Diverse coefficients were calculated to assess reliability. RESULTS: Minimum rank factor analysis detected a two-factor or single-factor structure. Exploratory factor analysis with 12 items showed a two-factor structure, explaining 69.11% of the variance. These items were strongly correlated with each other (r = 0.80). Schmid-Leiman: all items seemed to represent the general factor (loadings above 0.50), which was 76.4% of the extracted variance. Simplicity indices were good (percentile 99): Bentler's Simplicity Index of 0.99 and Loading Simplicity Index of 0.48. Internal consistency indexes indicated good reliability. LiS-RPL was shown to be homogenous. CONCLUSION: LiS-RPL is a validated tool for evaluating subjects' satisfaction with medicine package leaflets. Validation of a new tool for evaluating subjects' satisfaction with medicine package leaflets: a cross-sectional descriptive study | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

show abstract

Qualitative analysis of Portuguese-language YouTube videos about autism spectrum disorders

Paixão,

Forno,

de Oliveira

et al. 2024

Disability and Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Brazilian Portuguese Version of the DISCERN Instrument: Translation Procedures and Psychometric Properties

Cited by 13 publications

References 44 publications

Translating and Adapting the DISCERN Instrument Into a Simplified Chinese Version and Validating Its Reliability: Development and Usability Study

Translating and Adapting the DISCERN Instrument Into a Simplified Chinese Version and Validating Its Reliability: Development and Usability Study

Validation of a new tool for evaluating subjects’ satisfaction with medicine package leaflets: a cross-sectional descriptive study

Qualitative analysis of Portuguese-language YouTube videos about autism spectrum disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About