SERAF- Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Feb 10;10:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-13.
Research questionnaires are not always translated appropriately before they are used in new temporal, cultural or linguistic settings. The results based on such instruments may therefore not accurately reflect what they are supposed to measure. This paper aims to illustrate the process and required steps involved in the cross-cultural adaptation of a research instrument using the adaptation process of an attitudinal instrument as an example.
A questionnaire was needed for the implementation of a study in Norway 2007. There was no appropriate instruments available in Norwegian, thus an Australian-English instrument was cross-culturally adapted.
The adaptation process included investigation of conceptual and item equivalence. Two forward and two back-translations were synthesized and compared by an expert committee. Thereafter the instrument was pretested and adjusted accordingly. The final questionnaire was administered to opioid maintenance treatment staff (n=140) and harm reduction staff (n=180). The overall response rate was 84%. The original instrument failed confirmatory analysis. Instead a new two-factor scale was identified and found valid in the new setting.
The failure of the original scale highlights the importance of adapting instruments to current research settings. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that concepts within an instrument are equal between the original and target language, time and context. If the described stages in the cross-cultural adaptation process had been omitted, the findings would have been misleading, even if presented with apparent precision. Thus, it is important to consider possible barriers when making a direct comparison between different nations, cultures and times.
研究问卷在用于新的时间、文化或语言环境之前,并不总是被恰当地翻译。因此,基于这些工具的研究结果可能无法准确反映它们应该测量的内容。本文旨在举例说明研究工具跨文化适应的过程和所需步骤。
2007 年在挪威实施一项研究时需要用到问卷,但没有合适的挪威语工具,因此对澳大利亚英语工具进行了跨文化适应。
适应过程包括概念和项目等效性的调查。由一个专家委员会综合并比较了两次正向翻译和两次反向翻译。然后对该工具进行了预测试并进行了相应的调整。最终问卷发放给了阿片类药物维持治疗工作人员(n=140)和减少伤害工作人员(n=180)。总体回复率为 84%。原始工具未能通过验证性分析。相反,在新的环境中确定了一个新的两因素量表,并发现其有效。
原始量表的失败突出了适应工具以适应当前研究环境的重要性。它还强调了确保工具内的概念在原始语言和目标语言、时间和背景之间是等同的重要性。如果省略了跨文化适应过程中描述的阶段,即使以明显的精度呈现,研究结果也会产生误导。因此,在不同国家、文化和时间之间进行直接比较时,考虑可能存在的障碍非常重要。