Jonathan Epstein1, Ruth Miyuki Santo2, Francis Guillemin3. 1. Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, APEMAC, EA 4360, Faculté de Médecine, 9 avenue de la Forêt de Haye, 54505 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of São Paulo, School of Medicine, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar 255, São Paulo - SP, 05403-000, Brazil. 3. Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, APEMAC, EA 4360, Faculté de Médecine, 9 avenue de la Forêt de Haye, 54505 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. Electronic address: francis.guillemin@univ-lorraine.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) of a questionnaire is to achieve equivalence between the original and adapted questionnaire. Here, we aimed to review the state of the art in CCA methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed cross-disciplinary bibliographic databases for articles on methods and guidelines for CCA of questionnaires. Articles were first selected by their abstract and title, and then, we retrieved full-text English articles. References of selected articles were searched for additional relevant studies. RESULTS: We identified 31 guidelines and found no consensus in CCA methods. Most methods included use of committees, focus groups, and back translations. Evidence for the best methods is lacking, although clues indicate that back translation may not be mandatory. CONCLUSION: Several methods are available for CCA of questionnaires. According to experts only, most would achieve comparable results, and choosing one is a matter of preference and logistic. More evidence is needed to support recommendations. Adaptation and validation of a questionnaire are two different processes that should be distinguished and undertaken with care.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) of a questionnaire is to achieve equivalence between the original and adapted questionnaire. Here, we aimed to review the state of the art in CCA methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed cross-disciplinary bibliographic databases for articles on methods and guidelines for CCA of questionnaires. Articles were first selected by their abstract and title, and then, we retrieved full-text English articles. References of selected articles were searched for additional relevant studies. RESULTS: We identified 31 guidelines and found no consensus in CCA methods. Most methods included use of committees, focus groups, and back translations. Evidence for the best methods is lacking, although clues indicate that back translation may not be mandatory. CONCLUSION: Several methods are available for CCA of questionnaires. According to experts only, most would achieve comparable results, and choosing one is a matter of preference and logistic. More evidence is needed to support recommendations. Adaptation and validation of a questionnaire are two different processes that should be distinguished and undertaken with care.
Authors: Laura S Castro; Tracy A Balboni; Talita C Lobo; Rita Simone L Moreira; Harold G Koenig; John R Peteet; Fatima Cintra Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2021-03-12
Authors: Maisa Vitória Gayoso; Flávia Seullner Domingues; Marcondes Cavalcante França Junior; Stephanie H Felgoise; Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira; Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Celia M Lescano; Humberto López Castillo; Ercilia Calcano; Manuel Mayor; Milagro Porter; Yairí Rivera-Torgerson; Charles Dion; Stephanie L Marhefka; David Barker; Larry K Brown Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Jennifer Petkovic; Jonathan Epstein; Rachelle Buchbinder; Vivian Welch; Tamara Rader; Anne Lyddiatt; Rosemary Clerehan; Robin Christensen; Annelies Boonen; Niti Goel; Lara J Maxwell; Karine Toupin-April; Maarten De Wit; Jennifer Barton; Caroline Flurey; Janet Jull; Cheryl Barnabe; Antoine G Sreih; Willemina Campbell; Christoph Pohl; Mehmet Tuncay Duruöz; Jasvinder A Singh; Peter S Tugwell; Francis Guillemin Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Vinaya Manchaiah; María F Muñoz; Elia Hatfield; Marc A Fagelson; Elizabeth Parks Aronson; Gerhard Andersson; Eldré W Beukes Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Maike V Tietschert; Federica Angeli; Arno J A van Raak; Dirk Ruwaard; Sara J Singer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: J Devine; L A Schröder; F Metzner; F Klasen; J Moon; M Herdman; M P Hurtado; G Castillo; A C Haller; H Correia; C B Forrest; U Ravens-Sieberer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.147