Chan Matthew T V, Lo Charlotte C K, Lok Candy K W, Chan Tak Wing, Choi Kai C, Gin Tony
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Anesth Analg. 2008 Oct;107(4):1189-95. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318184b94e.
We evaluated a Chinese translation of the quality of recovery (QoR) score for measuring health status in patients after surgery and anesthesia.
The Chinese QoR score was developed by a panel of linguistic experts using a series of forward and backward translations. We then compared the psychometric performance of the Chinese QoR score with the original English version in bilingual Chinese patients undergoing a variety of surgeries. Using a crossover design, 210 patients were randomly assigned to complete both versions of the QoR score, 1 h apart, in the morning after surgery according to one of the two sequences: Chinese followed by the English QoR score or the reverse order. Test-retest and interrater reliabilities were calculated by comparing scores administered 6-8 h later and those completed by the patients and duty nurses, respectively.
Patient responses to the Chinese QoR score agreed well with the English version (weighted kappa statistic, kappaw=0.92). Both QoR scores correlated with patient satisfaction scores (Chinese version, rho=0.82; English version, rho=0.79) confirming convergent validity. There was also significant negative correlation between the QoR scores and female gender, duration of hospital stay, or magnitude of surgery (discriminant construct validity). We found the Chinese QoR score has good internal consistency (Cronbach's rho=0.91), interobserver (kappaw=0.77), and test-retest reliability (kappaw=0.83). These values were similar to those of the original English version (Cronbach's rho=0.89, interobserver kappaw=0.84, test-retest reliability kappaw=0.88).
The Chinese QoR score is conceptually, semantically, and operationally equivalent to the English version. Both scales provide valid, reliable, and responsive assessment of the QoR after surgery and anesthesia.
我们评估了用于衡量手术和麻醉后患者健康状况的恢复质量(QoR)评分的中文译本。
中文QoR评分由一组语言专家通过一系列正向和反向翻译编制而成。然后,我们在接受各种手术的双语中国患者中,比较了中文QoR评分与原始英文版本的心理测量性能。采用交叉设计,210名患者根据两种顺序之一,在手术后早晨随机分配,间隔1小时完成两个版本的QoR评分:先中文后英文QoR评分或相反顺序。通过比较6 - 8小时后给出的评分以及患者和值班护士分别完成的评分,计算重测信度和评分者间信度。
患者对中文QoR评分的回答与英文版本高度一致(加权kappa统计量,kappaw = 0.92)。两个QoR评分均与患者满意度评分相关(中文版,rho = 0.82;英文版,rho = 0.79),证实了收敛效度。QoR评分与女性性别、住院时间或手术规模之间也存在显著负相关(判别结构效度)。我们发现中文QoR评分具有良好的内部一致性(Cronbach's rho = 0.91)、观察者间一致性(kappaw = 0.77)和重测信度(kappaw = 0.83)。这些值与原始英文版本的值相似(Cronbach's rho = 0.89,观察者间kappa = 0.84,重测信度kappa = 0.88)。
中文QoR评分在概念、语义和操作上与英文版本等效。两个量表都能对手术和麻醉后的恢复质量提供有效、可靠且灵敏的评估。