Cited by 5,521Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation

Open access
Wild, Diane, Grove, Alyson, Martin, Mona, Eremenco, Sonya, McElroy, Sandra, Verjee-Lorenz, Aneesa, Erikson, Pennifer·2005·Value in Health

Abstract

In 1999, ISPOR formed the Quality of Life Special Interest group (QoL-SIG)--Translation and Cultural Adaptation group (TCA group) to stimulate discussion on and create guidelines and standards for the translation and cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. After identifying a general lack of consistency in current methods and published guidelines, the TCA group saw a need to develop a holistic perspective that synthesized the full spectrum of published methods. This process resulted in the development of Translation and Cultural Adaptation of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures--Principles of Good Practice (PGP), a report on current methods, and an appraisal of their strengths and weaknesses. The TCA Group undertook a review of evidence from current practice, a review of the literature and existing guidelines, and consideration of the issues facing the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, and the broader outcomes research community. Each approach to translation and cultural adaptation was considered systematically in terms of rationale, components, key actors, and the potential benefits and risks associated with each approach and step. The results of this review were subjected to discussion and challenge within the TCA group, as well as consultation with the outcomes research community at large. Through this review, a consensus emerged on a broad approach, along with a detailed critique of the strengths and weaknesses of the differing methodologies. The results of this review are set out as "Translation and Cultural Adaptation of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures--Principles of Good Practice" and are reported in this document.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Five Japanese female dementia family caregivers provided feedback on the readability of each J-VLQAC item (cognitive debriefing).

    “Finally, to check comprehensibility and cognitive equivalence of the translated measure (i.e., cognitive debriefing, Wild et al., 2005), five Japanese female dementia family caregivers were asked to read each item of the J-VLQAC and provide feedback on their readability.”
  • The translation of the VLQAC from English to Japanese was completed following the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research taskforce guideline.

    “The translation of the VLQAC (Romero-Moreno et al., 2017) from English to Japanese was completed following the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research taskforce guideline (Wild et al., 2005).”
  • The translation of the EACQ was carried out using rigorous procedures, which followed the ISPOR guidelines.

    “The translation of the EACQ was carried out using rigorous proced ures, which followed the ISPOR guidelines (Wild et al., 2005)”
  • The Japanese version of the PPDTS was developed based on the translation guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force.

    “The Japanese version of the PPDTS was developed based on the translation guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force [26].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 5,521

Authors
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P.
Affiliations
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wild, Diane
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
94-104
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133323217
Cited by
5,521
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 558 · 2025: 543 · 2024: 591 · 2023: 503 · 2022: 501 · 2021: 523 · 2020: 420 · 2019: 328 · 2018: 297 · 2017: 257 · 2016: 203 · 2015: 161 · 2014: 165 · 2013: 149 · 2012: 102
FWCI
39.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
patient-reported outcome measures, translation, cultural adaptation, cross-cultural adaptation, good practice principles, quality of life, ISPOR, methodological critique
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Culture, Health Services Research, Humans, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sickness Impact Profile, Advisory Committees

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