PURPOSE: In the United Kingdom, cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires would allow for inclusivity in assessment in cancer clinics for non-English speakers. The aim was to translate the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) into Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi and undertake preliminary evaluation of translated versions. METHODS: The study comprised three stages: (1) translation/back translation and evaluation of cultural equivalence of the SDI-21, (2) south Asian (SA) patient evaluation of SDI-21 translations and (3) evaluation using Rasch analysis comparing English and Urdu SDI-21 from data pooled from this and three other studies. RESULTS: Forward/backward translation resulted in minor amendments particularly in forward translation of SDI-21(Hindi). The majority of the 55 patients interviewed found the SDI-21 acceptable and clear, resulting in no amendments (all versions). Rasch analysis demonstrated good fit. Differential item functioning (DIF) was found for one item, in the comparison of white English (WE)- and SA Urdu-speaking groups. Detailed DIF analysis comparing self-completion and read-aloud administration by language group demonstrated this DIF only held for the comparison between SA English speakers (self-completion) and SA Urdu (read out). CONCLUSIONS: Translated versions are culturally and linguistically acceptable. The SDI-21 (Urdu) performs similarly to the English version when self-completed.
PURPOSE: In the United Kingdom, cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires would allow for inclusivity in assessment in cancer clinics for non-English speakers. The aim was to translate the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) into Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi and undertake preliminary evaluation of translated versions. METHODS: The study comprised three stages: (1) translation/back translation and evaluation of cultural equivalence of the SDI-21, (2) south Asian (SA) patient evaluation of SDI-21 translations and (3) evaluation using Rasch analysis comparing English and Urdu SDI-21 from data pooled from this and three other studies. RESULTS: Forward/backward translation resulted in minor amendments particularly in forward translation of SDI-21(Hindi). The majority of the 55 patients interviewed found the SDI-21 acceptable and clear, resulting in no amendments (all versions). Rasch analysis demonstrated good fit. Differential item functioning (DIF) was found for one item, in the comparison of white English (WE)- and SA Urdu-speaking groups. Detailed DIF analysis comparing self-completion and read-aloud administration by language group demonstrated this DIF only held for the comparison between SA English speakers (self-completion) and SA Urdu (read out). CONCLUSIONS: Translated versions are culturally and linguistically acceptable. The SDI-21 (Urdu) performs similarly to the English version when self-completed.
Authors: N W Scott; P M Fayers; N K Aaronson; A Bottomley; A de Graeff; M Groenvold; M Koller; M A Petersen; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-11-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: N W Scott; P M Fayers; A Bottomley; N K Aaronson; A de Graeff; M Groenvold; M Koller; M A Petersen; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Allison Worth; Tasneem Irshad; Raj Bhopal; Duncan Brown; Julia Lawton; Elizabeth Grant; Scott Murray; Marilyn Kendall; James Adam; Rafik Gardee; Aziz Sheikh Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-02-03