CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,322Health Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCultural Competency in Health Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline

Sousa, Valmi D., Rojjanasrirat, Wilaiporn·2011·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The diversity of the population worldwide suggests a great need for cross-culturally validated research instruments or scales. Researchers and clinicians must have access to reliable and valid measures of concepts of interest in their own cultures and languages to conduct cross-cultural research and/or provide quality patient care. Although there are well-established methodological approaches for translating, adapting and validating instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research, a great variation in the use of these approaches continues to prevail in the health care literature. Therefore, the objectives of this scholarly paper were to review published recommendations of cross-cultural validation of instruments and scales, and to propose and present a clear and user-friendly guideline for the translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural health care research. METHODS: A review of highly recommended methodological approaches to translation, adaptation and cross-cultural validation of research instruments or scales was performed. Recommendations were summarized and incorporated into a seven-step guideline. Each one of the steps was described and key points were highlighted. Example of a project using the proposed steps of the guideline was fully described. CONCLUSIONS: Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural research is very time-consuming and requires careful planning and the adoption of rigorous methodological approaches to derive a reliable and valid measure of the concept of interest in the target population.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric Theory

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,005

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • Graceland University (US)
Corresponding author
Sousa, Valmi D.
ORCID
Rojjanasrirat, Wilaiporn
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-28
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
268-274
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
OpenAlex
W1851740361
Cited by
3,322
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 454 · 2025: 503 · 2024: 436 · 2023: 387 · 2022: 416 · 2021: 313 · 2020: 221 · 2019: 167 · 2018: 120 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
43.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Cultural Competency in Health Care
Keywords
cross-cultural validation, psychometric validation, validation guidelines, reliability and validity, patient-reported outcome measures
MeSH terms
Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Guidelines as Topic

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