The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Issues in cross‐cultural validity: Example from the adaptation, reliability, and validity testing of a Turkish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire
Abstract
Objective: Guidelines have been established for cross‐cultural adaptation of outcome measures. However, invariance across cultures must also be demonstrated through analysis of Differential Item Functioning (DIF). This is tested in the context of a Turkish adaptation of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Methods: Internal construct validity of the adapted HAQ is assessed by Rasch analysis; reliability, by internal consistency and the intraclass correlation coefficient; external construct validity, by association with impairments and American College of Rheumatology functional stages. Cross‐cultural validity is tested through DIF by comparison with data from the UK version of the HAQ. Results: The adapted version of the HAQ demonstrated good internal construct validity through fit of the data to the Rasch model (mean item fit 0.205; SD 0.998). Reliability was excellent (α = 0.97) and external construct validity was confirmed by expected associations. DIF for culture was found in only 1 item. Conclusions: Cross‐cultural validity was found to be sufficient for use in international studies between the UK and Turkey. Future adaptation of instruments should include analysis of DIF at the field testing stage in the adaptation process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Arnett, F. C., Edworthy, S. M., Bloch, D. A., Mcshane, D. J., Fries, J. F., Cooper, N. S., Healey, L. A., Kaplan, S. R., Liang, M. H., Luthra, H. S., et al. (1988) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780310302 · Cited by 19,752
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 · Cited by 14,542
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores
Rozeboom, W. W., Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1969) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162101 · Cited by 8,022
Revised Criteria for the Classification of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Arnett, F. C. (1990) · Orthopaedic Nursing · doi:10.1097/00006416-199003000-00011 · Cited by 7,723
Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests
(1961) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(61)80061-2 · Cited by 6,939
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n · Cited by 6,060
Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis
Fries, J. F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R. G., & Holman, H. R. (1980) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780230202 · Cited by 4,382
Differential Item Functioning.
Gudgeon, A. C., Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1994) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2348590 · Cited by 2,091
Metadata
- Authors
- Küçükdeveci, A. A., Sahin, H., Ataman, S., Griffiths, B., & Tennant, A.
- Venue
- Arthritis Care & Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-05
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-19
- ISSN
- 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0123
- OpenAlex
- W1556304510
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Issues in cross‐cultural validity: Example from the adaptation, reliability, and validity testing of a Turkish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.20091
- The paper
- Küçükdeveci, A. A., Sahin, H., Ataman, S., Griffiths, B., & Tennant, A. (2004). Issues in cross‐cultural validity: Example from the adaptation, reliability, and validity testing of a Turkish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Care & Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.20091
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
