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

Abstract

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.

The Chinese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study

“…We found that the model was effective in the translation of the PEMAT-P into the C-PEMAT-P. This finding confirms the findings reported by some recent studies [34][35][36][37], which also attested to the effectiveness of this model in the cross-lingual, cross-cultural translation of health-related instruments and materials. We adopted back-translation to verify the translation equivalence of the C-PEMAT-P by requesting a native English speaker to compare the back-translated English version and the original English version of the PEMAT-P in terms of CL and SI, therefore, minimizing translation errors.…”

Development of a method and an assessment construct for person-centered translation of dementia public stigma scales

“…For example, if “ignore” in Item 16 were forward-translated into “hūshì” (the trait of neglecting responsibilities and lacking concern), “mòshì” (willful lack of care and attention, disregard), “bù lǐcǎi” (fail to acknowledge, give little or no attention to), “qīngshì” (treat with contemptuous disregard), “lěngyù” (a refusal to recognize someone you know), “mièshì” (look down on with disdain), or “páichì” (marginalize, relegated to a lower or outer edge, as of specific groups of people), different degrees of discrimination or negative emotions would be induced, which is not intended in the original English scale. These translations would naturally lead to misleading backward translations, making translation equivalence testing ( 54 , 55 ) considerably challenging. Translations thus produced could not effectively explore the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains of stigma held by the general public, therefore failing to gain a better understanding of dementia public stigma.…”

“…Thus informed, we focused on panel discussions after literal translation, making full use of the potential advantages of the panel members: the language proficiency of native Chinese speakers (MJ, YS, and WC) and native English speakers (L-FL, SK, AB-W, and SS); the health translation experience of bilingual translators (MJ, YS, and WC); and the expertise of the scale author of the DPSS (SK) and content experts (L-FL, AB-W, and SS) who are engaging in studies on mental health with a special focus on dementia. Such penal discussions ensured not only the linguistic appropriateness and comprehensibility as well as cultural relevance and accessibility of the translated scale but also the maintenance of the original meaning and intent of the source scale ( 54 ). The method developed was presented schematically in the RESULTS section.…”

“…In the development of well-established and scientifically validated instruments available in various languages, scientific standards must be meticulously followed during translation, adaptation, and comprehensive psychometric evaluation. To this end, strategies need to be used in the whole translation and adaptation process to ensure semantic equivalence and cultural appropriateness, including “forward translation, semantics evaluation and consolidation of the translated version, back translation, translation equivalence testing, and further adaptation” ( 54 ). Based primarily on the forward-backward translation approach, these strategies are designed to adapt an instrument in “a culturally relevant and comprehensible form” without changing its original meaning and intent ( 55 ).…”

Myopia information on TikTok: analysis factors that impact video quality and audience engagement

“…Video quality was assessed using the DISCERN tool [ 23 ], which includes 16 items evaluating “reliability” (items 1–8), “treatment choices” information quality (items 9–15), and “overall quality” (item 16). Items 1—15 are coded using a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = “No” (not meeting the criterion), 3 = “Partially” (partly meeting the criterion), and 5 = “Yes” (fully meeting the criterion).…”