2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline

Abstract: Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural research is very time-consuming and requires careful planning and the adoption of rigorous methodological approaches to derive a reliable and valid measure of the concept of interest in the target population.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
1,946
0
151

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,147 publications
(2,111 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
14
1,946
0
151
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%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…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%
“…More extensive field testing, in which patient understanding is assessed for each part of the instrument, could further enhance clinical usability (Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011). A survey among the expert crowd inquiring about their rating of or experiences with the preliminary version(s) of the CAPS-5 could further increase support for the translated version by clinicians and researchers in the field of psychotrauma.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Para maior aceitação na prática clínica ou em ambiente de pesquisa, os instrumentos de avaliação devem ter sua validade e confiabilidade testadas 6 . Uma das maneiras de avaliar a confiabilidade de um instrumento é através do estudo teste-reteste e interexaminador.…”
Section: Confiabilidade Do Instrumentounclassified
“…Além disso, adaptar uma escala desenvolvida em outro idioma e com sua confiabilidade já testada é um processo mais rápido e com menor custo que criar um novo instrumento. Desta forma, criou-se uma demanda por critérios e procedimentos que possibilitem o intercambio das informações obtidas nesses questionários, considerando a aplicação e a tradução válida, confiáveis e reprodutíveis para a língua e cultura do país alvo 6 .…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…The BREAST-Q was developed to measure quality of life in breast patients. It has been validated [18,19], and the translation process to Swedish was performed according to guidelines for linguistic validation of patient-reported outcome instruments [20]. Only domains relevant for the aim of the study were analysed: Quality of life domains: (1) psychosocial well-being, (2) sexual well-being and (3a) physical well-being (chest and upper body) and Satisfaction domains: (1) satisfaction with breasts and (5) satisfaction with outcome.…”
Section: Patient Satisfaction and Quality Of Lifementioning
confidence: 99%