Translation of Health Surveys Using Mixed Methods

Baker, Dian; Melnikow, Joy; Ly, May Ying; Shoultz, Janice; Niederhauser, Victoria; Diaz-Escamilla, Rafael

doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01368.x

Cited by 35 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Poudarjena pa je tudi potreba po zadostni premišljenosti pri načinu integracije kvantitativne in kvalitativne metodologije oziroma izbor ustreznega raziskovalnega načrta integracije metod glede na raziskovalni problem, upravičena uporaba kvalitativne raziskovalne faze ter zadostna upravičenost uporabe integracije metod glede na raziskovalni problem. 21 raziskav poudarja pomen nadaljnjega raziskovanja, in sicer v obliki priporočil za ponovitev raziskave na sorodnih ali kontrastnih populacijah (18), nadaljnje raziskovanje integracije metod v spletnem raziskovanju (36), uvedbo integracije metod v postopku evalvacije kakovosti novega merskega instrumenta (30), nadaljnja raziskovanja uporabe integracije metod pri sistematični evalvaciji promocijskih zdravstvenih programov (12,15,42,43) in razširitev možnosti uvedbe integracije metod v klinično prakso kot podpore pri razvoju na dokazih podprte prakse (44,38,34,41,39,37,48,45). Mortenson in Oliffe (31) izpostavljata potrebo po nadaljnjem raziskovanju integracije metod na področju delovne terapije, Andrew in Halcomb (10) na področju patronažnega zdravstvenega varstva in Bushy (13) na področju raziskovanja zdravja in zdravstvene nege na podeželju.…”

Section: Razpravljanjeunclassified

Integracija Kvantitativne In Kvalitativne Metodologije V Raziskavah V Zdravstvu: Sistematična Pregledna Študija / Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology in Health Science Research: A Systematic Review

Zurc¹

2013

Slovenian Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Razpravljanjeunclassified

Integracija Kvantitativne In Kvalitativne Metodologije V Raziskavah V Zdravstvu: Sistematična Pregledna Študija / Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology in Health Science Research: A Systematic Review

Zurc¹

2013

Slovenian Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These processes are well accepted, but also have inherent limitations – recently addressed in the literature. 1, 2 In addition, burden and reading level are taken in to consideration. Further, accessibility, appropriateness for clinical practice, and the investigator’s prior experiences with an instrument are pragmatic concerns that effect instrument selection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrument selection for randomized controlled trials: Why this and not that?

Records

Keller

Ainsworth

et al. 2012

Contemporary Clinical Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fundamental linchpin for obtaining rigorous findings in quantitative research involves the selection of survey instruments. Psychometric recommendations are available for the processes for scale development and testing and guidance for selection of established scales. These processes are necessary to address the validity link between the phenomena under investigation, the empirical measures and, ultimately, the theoretical ties between these and the world views of the participants. Detailed information is most often provided about study design and protocols, but far less frequently is a detailed theoretical explanation provided for why specific instruments are chosen. Guidance to inform choices is often difficult to find when scales are needed for specific cultural, ethnic, or racial groups. This paper details the rationale underlying instrument selection for measurement of the major processes (intervention, mediator and moderator variables, outcome variables) in an ongoing study of postpartum Latinas, Madres para la Salud [Mothers for Health]. The rationale underpinning our choices includes a discussion of alternatives, when appropriate. These exemplars may provide direction for other intervention researchers who are working with specific cultural, racial, or ethnic groups or for other investigators who are seeking to select the ‘best’ instrument. Thoughtful consideration of measurement and articulation of the rationale underlying our choices facilitates the maintenance of rigor within the study design and improves our ability to assess study outcomes.

show abstract

“…Decades of cross-cultural research have used the widely accepted Brislin (1970) model of forward and back translation. However, even when such well-established methods are used to translate study tools and resolve “semantic incongruences” the possibility remains of selecting terms that may be unfamiliar to the study population, ambiguous, and open to misinterpretation, leading to invalid results and misplaced interventions (Baker et al, 2010). During cross-cultural research, it is essential to establish participants' comprehension and familiarity with research terms, to ensure that translated terms are accurate and not lost in translation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lost in Translation: Language, Terminology, and Understanding of Penile–Anal Intercourse in an HIV Prevention Trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe

Duby

Hartmann

Mahaka

et al. 2015

The Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite efforts to use culturally appropriate, understandable terms for sexual behavior in HIV prevention trials, the way in which participants interpret questions is underinvestigated and not well understood. We present findings from qualitative interviews with 88 women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe who had previously participated in an HIV prevention trial. Findings suggested that participants may have misinterpreted questions pertaining to penile–anal intercourse (PAI) to refer to vaginal sex from behind and subsequently misreported the behavior. Three key issues emerge from these findings: first, the underreporting of socially stigmatized sexual behaviors due to social desirability bias; second, the inaccurate reporting of sexual behaviors due to miscomprehension of research terms; and third, the ambiguity in vernacular terms for sexual behavior and lack of acceptable terms for PAI in some languages. These findings highlight methodological challenges around developing clear and unambiguous definitions for sexual behaviors, with implications not only for clinical trials but also for clinical practice and sexual risk assessment. We discuss the challenges in collecting accurate and reliable data on heterosexual PAI in Africa and make recommendations for improved data collection on sensitive behaviors.

show abstract

Translation of Health Surveys Using Mixed Methods

Cited by 35 publications

References 21 publications

Integracija Kvantitativne In Kvalitativne Metodologije V Raziskavah V Zdravstvu: Sistematična Pregledna Študija / Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology in Health Science Research: A Systematic Review

Integracija Kvantitativne In Kvalitativne Metodologije V Raziskavah V Zdravstvu: Sistematična Pregledna Študija / Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology in Health Science Research: A Systematic Review

Instrument selection for randomized controlled trials: Why this and not that?

Lost in Translation: Language, Terminology, and Understanding of Penile–Anal Intercourse in an HIV Prevention Trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About