Seifpanahi Sadegh, Jalaie Shohreh, Nikoo Mohammad Reza, Sobhani-Rad Davood
Dept. of Speech & Language Pathology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Biostatistics Division, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Iran J Public Health. 2015 Apr;44(4):458-69.
In this systematic review, the aim is to investigate different VHI-30 versions between languages regarding their validity, reliability and their translation process.
Articles were extracted systematically from some of the prime databases including Cochrane, googlescholar, MEDLINE (via PubMed gate), Sciencedirect, Web of science, and their reference lists by Voice Handicap Index keyword with only title limitation and time of publication (from 1997 to 2014). However the other limitations (e.g. excluding non-English, other versions of VHI ones, and so on) applied manually after studying the papers. In order to appraise the methodology of the papers, three authors did it by 12-item diagnostic test checklist in "Critical Appraisal Skills Programme" or (CASP) site. After applying all of the screenings, the papers that had the study eligibility criteria such as; translation, validity, and reliability processes, included in this review.
The remained non-repeated articles were 12 from different languages. All of them reported validity, reliability and translation method, which presented in details in this review.
Mainly the preferred method for translation in the gathered papers was "Brislin's classic back-translation model (1970), although the procedure was not performed completely but it was more prominent than other translation procedures. High test-retest reliability, internal consistency and moderate construct validity between different languages in regards to all 3 VHI-30 domains confirm the applicability of translated VHI-30 version across languages.
在本系统评价中,目的是研究不同语言版本的VHI-30在有效性、可靠性及其翻译过程方面的差异。
通过语音障碍指数关键词,仅在标题限制和发表时间(1997年至2014年)的条件下,从包括Cochrane、谷歌学术、MEDLINE(通过PubMed网关)、ScienceDirect、科学网等一些主要数据库及其参考文献列表中系统提取文章。然而,在研究论文后手动应用了其他限制条件(例如排除非英语、VHI的其他版本等)。为了评估论文的方法学,三位作者通过“批判性评估技能计划”(CASP)网站上的12项诊断测试清单进行评估。在应用所有筛选后,符合研究纳入标准(如翻译、有效性和可靠性过程)的论文被纳入本评价。
剩余的非重复文章有12篇来自不同语言。所有文章都报告了有效性、可靠性和翻译方法,本评价中对此进行了详细介绍。
在所收集的论文中,主要的首选翻译方法是“布里斯林经典回译模型(1970年)”,尽管该过程未完全执行,但比其他翻译过程更为突出。所有3个VHI-30领域在不同语言之间具有较高的重测信度、内部一致性和中等的结构效度,证实了翻译后的VHI-30版本在不同语言中的适用性。