How to translate and locally adapt a PROM. Assessment of cross-cultural differential item functioning.
Athletic Injuries
/ therapy
Cartilage, Articular
/ injuries
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Humans
Knee Injuries
/ complications
Ligaments, Articular
/ injuries
Osteoarthritis, Knee
/ diagnosis
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Scandinavian and Nordic Countries
Sports Medicine
Translations
PROMs
cognitive interview
construct validity
cultural adaption
data pooling
differential item functioning
knee ligament reconstruction registry
translation
Journal
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports
ISSN: 1600-0838
Titre abrégé: Scand J Med Sci Sports
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 9111504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
revised:
22
08
2020
received:
25
05
2020
accepted:
18
09
2020
pubmed:
23
10
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
22
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Translating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can alter the meaning of items and undermine the PROM's psychometric properties (quantified as cross-cultural differential item functioning [DIF]). The aim of this paper was to present the theoretical background for PROM translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation, and assess how PROMs used in sports medicine research have been translated and adapted. We also assessed DIF for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) across Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish versions. We conducted a search in PubMed and Scopus to identify the method of translation, adaptation, and validation of PROMs relevant to musculoskeletal research. Additionally, 150 preoperative KOOS questionnaires were obtained from the Scandinavian knee ligament reconstruction registries, and cross-cultural DIF was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. There were 392 studies identified, describing the translation of 61 PROMs. Ninety-four percent were performed with forward-backward technique. Forty-nine percent used cognitive interviews to ensure appropriate wording, understandability, and adaptation to the target culture. Only two percent were validated according to modern test theory. No study assessed cross-cultural DIF. One KOOS subscale showed no cross-cultural DIF, two had DIF with respect to some (but not all) items, and thus conversion tables could be constructed, and two KOOS subscales could not be pooled. Most PROM translations are of undocumented quality, despite the common conclusion that they are valid and reliable. Scores from three of five KOOS subscales can be pooled across the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish versions, but two of these must be adjusted for DIF.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
999-1008Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Røtterud JH, Sivertsen EA, Forssblad M, et al. Effect on patient-reported outcomes of debridement or microfracture of concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions in anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees: a nationwide cohort study from Norway and Sweden of 357 Patients With 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:337-344.
Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11(3):509-521.
Brodersen J, Meads DM, Kreiner S, Thorsen H, Doward L, McKenna SP. Methodological aspects of differential item functioning in the Rasch model. J Med Econ. 2007;10(3):309-324.
Holland PW, Wainer H (Eds). Differential Item Functioning. New York: Laurence Erlbaum Associates; 1993.
Granan LP, Forssblad M, Lind M, Engebretsen L. The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004-2007: baseline epidemiology. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:563-567.
Grindem H, Wellsandt E, Failla M, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Anterior cruciate ligament injury-who succeeds without reconstructive surgery? The Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6:2325967118774255.
Capin JJ, Failla M, Zarzycki R, et al. Superior 2-year functional outcomes among young female athletes after ACL reconstruction in 10 return-to-sport training sessions: comparison of ACL-SPORTS randomized controlled trial with Delaware-Oslo and MOON Cohorts. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7:2325967119861311.
Hansen CD, Jensen J, Siersma V, Brodersen J, Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR. A catalogue of PROMs in sports science - quality assessment of PROM development and validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31:991-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13923
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186-3191.
Metsavacht L, Leporace G, Riberto M, Sposito MMdM, Batista LA. Transation and cross-cultoral adaption of the Brazilian version of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:1894-1899.
Swaine-Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, Thorsen H, McKenna SP. Adapting quality of life instruments. Value Health. 2004;7:S27-S30.
Jöreskog KG. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika. 1971;36:409-426.
Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factor- ial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525-543.
Svetina D, Rutkowski L, Rutkowski D. Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines: an illustration using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools packages. Struct Equa Model. 2020;27:111-130.
Kreiner S, Christensen KB. Graphical Rasch models. In: Mesbah M, Cole FC, Lee MT, eds. Statistical methods for quality of life studies. Boston, MA: Springer; 2002:187-203.
Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1-36.
Kreiner S, Nielsen T. Item analysis in DIGRAM 3.04: Part I: Guided tours. Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen. 2013.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc. 1995;57:289-300.
Andersen EB. A goodness of fit test for the rasch model. Psychometrika. 1973;38:123-140.
Malliaropoulos N, Korakakis V, Christodoulou D, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire (FASH-Functional Assessment Scale for Acute Hamstring Injuries): to measure the severity and impact of symptoms on function and sports ability in patients with acute hamstring injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:1607-1612.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94-104.
Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through Differential Item Functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the Pro-ESOR project. Med Care. 2004;42:37-48.