Three-Nation Comparison of Content Validity of the Environmental Assessment Tool-Higher Care

Brennan, Sumiyo; Doan, Therese; Sun, Joanna; Fahsold, Anne

doi:10.1080/26892618.2022.2092930

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evaluation of the content validity of the instrument was carried out in advance as a criterion for achieving reliability (Aiken, 1980; Figure 1). A comparison of the test results of each instrument version is reported elsewhere (Brennan et al, 2022). Detailed explanations of the individual steps are provided in the original studies (Brennan et al, 2021; Fahsold et al, 2022; Sun & Fleming, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting the Australian Environmental Assessment Tool—High Care (EAT-HC): Experiences and Practical Implications From Germany, Japan, and Singapore

Fahsold

Brennan

Doan

et al. 2022

HERD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Assessing the built environment in nursing homes is part of several established instruments. Measurements are primarily published in English, so there is a need for cross-cultural adaptation to be able to use them in other countries. This procedure should be carried out alongside translation guidelines to ensure successful adaptation not only for assessments that capture complex constructs, such as the built environment, but also for assessments to be applied in healthcare in general. Objective: This article presents different approaches to adopt the Australian Environmental Assessment Tool—High Care (EAT-HC) based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for instrument translation. The comparison of these processes should provide implications for further adaptations of the instrument. Methods: The adaptation processes carried out in Germany, Japan, and Singapore were compared using thematic analysis. Steps taken to achieve linguistic validation and to adopt the tool were analyzed qualitatively in the context of overarching needs for adjustment. Results: Every perspective adapted the WHO guidelines for their respective purposes of applying the EAT-HC. The order of steps varied, but elements to validate the results with the instruments’ creators and to ensure validity were included in all three countries. For items that might be challenging, we detected possible reasons that might help future adaptors manage this process more efficiently. Conclusion: The EAT-HC benefits from adaptation alongside the WHO guidelines in terms of enhancing the quality of translation and feasibility of application. Individual supplementary adaptation steps allow the identification of culture-specific needs for application in other countries.

show abstract