CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 469Health Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers

Open access
Cruchinho, Paulo, López-Franco, María Dolores, Capelas, Manuel Luís, Almeida, Sofia, Bennett, Phillippa May, Miranda da Silva, Marcelle, Teixeira, Gisela, Nunes, Elisabete +2 more·2024·Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s419714PMC PMC11151507
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cross-cultural validation of self-reported measurement instruments for research is a long and complex process, which involves specific risks of bias that could affect the research process and results. Furthermore, it requires researchers to have a wide range of technical knowledge about the translation, adaptation and pre-test aspects, their purposes and options, about the different psychometric properties, and the required evidence for their assessment and knowledge about the quantitative data processing and analysis using statistical software. This article aimed: 1) identify all guidelines and recommendations for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation within the healthcare sciences; 2) describe the methodological approaches established in these guidelines for conducting translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation; and 3) provide a practical guideline featuring various methodological options for novice researchers involved in translating, adapting, and validating measurement instruments. Forty-two guidelines on translation, adaptation, or cross-cultural validation of measurement instruments were obtained from "CINAHL with Full Text" (via EBSCO) and "MEDLINE with Full Text". A content analysis was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the methodological approaches recommended. Bases on these similarities and differences, we proposed an eight-step guideline that includes: a) forward translation; 2) synthesis of translations; 3) back translation; 4) harmonization; 5) pre-testing; 6) field testing; 7) psychometric validation, and 8) analysis of psychometric properties. It is a practical guideline because it provides extensive and comprehensive information on the methodological approaches available to researchers. This is the first methodological literature review carried out in the healthcare sciences regarding the methodological approaches recommended by existing guidelines.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/jmdh.s419714

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Adaptation and testing of measurement instruments across different international contexts saves time, facilitates quantitative comparisons between cultures over time, increases the generalizability of data, and contributes evidence for evaluating outcomes and developing effective interventions.

    “The adaptation and testing of measurement instruments across different international contexts not only saves time required to develop a new measurement, but also facilitates quantitative comparisons between cultures over time. This helps to increase the generalizability of data and contribute to evidence for evaluating outcomes and developing effective interventions [27–29].”

    From Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says cross-cultural adaptation facilitates comparisons between cultures, measurement of outcomes over time, and identification of factors relevant to effective interventions. It does not say adaptation saves time compared with developing a new instrument or specifically increases the generalizability of data. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 182

  1. [1]May C, Finch T, Rapley T. Normalization process theory. In: Nielsen P, Birken SA, editors. Handbook of Implementation Science. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020: 157.
  2. [2]Portney LG. Designing surveys and questionnaires. In: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Evidence-Based Practice. 4th ed. F.A. Davis Company; 2020: 141– 150.
  3. [3]Chow S-C, Liu J-P. Basic statistic concepts. In: Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience; 2004: 47– 54.
  4. [4]Sidani S, Braden CJ. Examination of interventions´ acceptance. In: Nursing and Health Interventions: Design, Evaluation, and Implementation. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2021: 218– 225.
  5. [5]Efstathiou G. Translation, adaptation and validation process of research intruments. In: Suohnen R, Stolt M, Papatravou E, editors. Individualized Care: Theory, Measurement, Research and Practice. Springer; 2019.
  6. [6]Cha E-S, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs. 2007; 58(4): 386– 395. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x 17442038 · DOI
  7. [7]Sutherland S. Outcomes research. In: Gray JR, Grove SK, editors. The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence. 9th ed. Elsevier; 2020: 365.
  8. [8]Miller LA, Lovler RL. How do we assess the psychometric quality of a test? In: Foundation of Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach. 6th ed. Sage Publications; 2020: 326.
  9. [9]Kristjansson EA, Desrochers A, Zumbo B. Translating and adapting measurement instruments for cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research: a guide for practitioners. Can J Nurs Res. 2003; 35(2): 127– 142. 12908201
  10. [10]Alagappan T. The cross-cultural adaptation process of a patient-reported outcome measure. J Sci Soc. 2023; 50(1): 13. doi: 10.4103/jss.jss_136_21 · DOI
  11. [11]Sul SIR, Lucas PRMB. Translation and validation of the anticipated turnover scale for the Portuguese cultural context. Nurs Open. 2020; 7(5): 1475– 1481. doi: 10.1002/nop2.521 32802367 PMC7424433 · DOI
  12. [12]Almeida S, Nascimento A, Lucas PB, Jesus É, Araújo B. RN4CAST study in Portugal: validation of the Portuguese version of the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. Aquichan. 2020; 20(3): 1– 10. doi: 10.5294/aqui.2020.20.3.8 · DOI
  13. [13]Lucas P, Jesus E, Almeida S, Araújo B. Validation of the psychometric properties of the Practice Environment Scale of Nursing Work Index in primary health care in Portugal. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(12): 6422. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126422 34198495 PMC8296248 · DOI
  14. [14]Anunciada S, Benito P, Gaspar F, Lucas P. Validation of psychometric properties of the Nursing Work Index: revised scale in Portugal. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(9): 4933. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19094933 35564328 PMC9102481 · DOI
  15. [15]Carvalho M, Gaspar F, Potra T, Lucas P. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Self-efficacy scale for clinical nurse leaders for the Portuguese culture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(14): 8590. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19148590 35886442 PMC9325131 · DOI
  16. [16]Sousa E, Lin C-F, Gaspar F, Lucas P. Translation and validation of the indicators of quality nursing work environments in the Portuguese cultural context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(19): 12313. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912313 36231619 PMC9565131 · DOI
  17. [17]Cabrita C, Lucas P, Teixeira G, Gaspar F. Translation and validation of the Individual Workload Perception Scale: revised for Portuguese nurses. Healthcare. 2022; 10(12): 2476. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10122476 36554000 PMC9778225 · DOI
  18. [18]Gomes P, Ribeiro S, Silva M, et al. Cross-cultural validation of the Portuguese version of the Quality of Oncology Nursing Care Scale. Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(5): 859. doi: 10.3390/cancers16050859 38473220 PMC10931065 · DOI
  19. [19]Cunha F, Pinto MR, Riesch S, Lucas P, Almeida S, Vieira M. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Portuguese version of the Exercise of Self-Care Agency Scale. Healthcare. 2024; 12(2): 159. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12020159 38255048 PMC10815554 · DOI
  20. [20]Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Other mesurement issues. In: Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. 4th ed. Springer Publishing; 2010: 446– 448.
  21. [22]Hedrih V. Test translation. In: Adapting Psychological Tests and Measurement Instruments for Cross-Cultural Research: An Introduction. Routledge; 2020: 48– 98.
  22. [23]Nord C. Defining translation functions: the translation brief as a guideline for the trainee translator. Ilha Do Desterro. 1997; 33: 41– 55.
  23. [24]Montalt V, González-Davies M. Understanding medical communication. In: Medical Translation Step by Step: Learning by Drafting. Routledge; 2006: 47.
  24. [25]Epstein J, Santo RM, Guillemin F. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(4): 435– 441. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021 25698408 · DOI
  25. [26]Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998; 7(4): 323– 335. doi: 10.1023/a:1024985930536 9610216 · DOI
  26. [27]Peña ED. Lost in translation: methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Dev. 2007; 78(4): 1255– 1264. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01064.x 17650137 · DOI
  27. [28]Alonso J, Black C, Norregaard J-C, et al. Cross-cultural differences in the reporting of global functional capacity. Med Care. 1998; 36(6): 868– 878. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199806000-00010 9630128 · DOI
  28. [29]Muniz J, Hambleton RK, Xing D. Small samples studies to detect flaws in item translations. Int J Test. 2001; 1(2): 115– 135. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0102_2 · DOI
  29. [30]Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Other measurement issues. In: Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. 4th ed. Springer Publishing; 2010: 449– 452.
  30. [31]Riccio CA, Yoon H, McCormick AS. Neuropsychological test selection with clients who are Asian. In: Davis JM, D´Amato RC, editors. Neuropsychology of Asians and Asian-Americans: Practical and Theoretical Considerations. Spinger Publishing; 2014: 153.
  31. [32]Smith TW, et al. Developing and evaluating cross national survey instruments. In: Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, editors. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Wiley Interscience; 2004. 439– 442.
  32. [33]van de Vijver F, Portinga YH. Conceptual and methodological issues in adapting tests. In: Hembletom RK, Merenda PF, Spilberg CD, editors. Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005: 41– 47.
  33. [35]Holbrook A. Acquiescence response bias. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Vol. I. Sage; 2008: 3.
  34. [36]van de Vijver FJR, Poortinga YH. Towards an Integrated Analysis of Bias in Cross-Cultural Assessment. Eur J Psychol Assess. 1997; 13(1): 29– 37. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29 · DOI
  35. [38]Wivagg J. Forced choice. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage; 2008: 289– 290.
  36. [39]Maitland A. Attitudes measurement. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage; 2008: 37– 38.
  37. [40]Hilton A, Skrutkowski M. Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nurs. 2002; 25(1): 1– 7. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200202000-00001 11838715 · DOI
  38. [41]Lino de CR, Brüggemann M, Souza M de L de OM, Barbosa de S, Santos Dos EKA. Adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de pesquisa conduzida pela enfermagem do Brasil: uma revisão integrativa. Texto Context - Enferm. 2018; 26(4). doi: 10.1590/0104-07072017001730017 · DOI
  39. [43]Machado da R, Fernandes AD de BF S, Oliveira de ALCB, Soares LS, Gouveia de O MT, Silva da GRF. Métodos de adaptação transcultural de instrumentos na área da enfermagem. Rev Gaúcha Enferm. 2018; 39. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2018.2017-0164 29995073 · DOI
  40. [47]Helmich E, Cristancho S, Diachun L, Lingard L. ‘How would you call this in English?’: being reflective about translations in international, cross-cultural qualitative research. Perspect Med Educ. 2017; 6(2): 127– 132. doi: 10.1007/S40037-017-0329-1 28220459 PMC5383565 · DOI
  41. [48]Uysal-Bozkir Ö, Parlevliet JL, de Rooij SE. Insufficient cross-cultural adaptations and psychometric properties for many translated health assessment scales: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(6): 608– 618. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.004 23419610 · DOI
  42. [49]Albach CA, Wagland R, Hunt KJ. Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of generic and cancer-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use with cancer patients in Brazil: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(4): 857– 870. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1703-5 28887596 PMC5874274 · DOI
  43. [50]Praveen S, Parmar J, Chandio N, Arora A. A systematic review of cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of oral health literacy tools. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(19): 10422. doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910422 34639729 PMC8508111 · DOI
  44. [51]Min SN, Duangthip D, Gao SS, Detsomboonrat P. Quality of the adaptation procedures and psychometric properties of the scale of oral health outcomes for 5-year-old children (SOHO-5): a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2023; 32(6): 1537– 1547. doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03280-2 36273047 · DOI
  45. [52]Danielsen AK, Pommergaard H-C, Burcharth J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J. Translation of questionnaires measuring health related quality of life is not standardized: a literature based research study. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5): e0127050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127050 25965447 PMC4428794 · DOI
  46. [53]Øygarden A-MU, Berg RC, Abudayya A, Glavin K, Strøm BS. Measurement instruments for parental stress in the postpartum period: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2022; 17(3): e0265616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265616 35303028 PMC8932572 · DOI
  47. [54]Echevarría-Guanilo ME, Gonçalves N, Romanoski PJ. Psychometric properties of measurement instruments: conceptual basis and evaluation methods: part II. Texto Context - Enferm. 2019; 28(e20170311): 1– 14. doi: 10.1590/1980-265x-tce-2017-0311 · DOI
  48. [55]Cruchinho P, Teixeira G, Lucas P, Gaspar F. Evaluating the methodological approaches of cross-cultural adaptation of the Bedside Handover Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire into Portuguese. J Healthc Leadersh. 2023; 15: 193– 208. doi: 10.2147/JHL.S422122 37674524 PMC10478977 · DOI
  49. [56]Slade D, Murray KA, Pun JKH, Eggins S. Nurses’ perceptions of mandatory bedside clinical handovers: an Australian hospital study. J Nurs Manag. 2019; 27(1): 161– 171. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12661 30198619 · DOI
  50. [57]Freudental-Pederson M, Hartmann-Peterson K, Nielsen LD. Mixing methods in the search for mobile complexity. In: Ficham B, Mark M, Murray L, editors. Mobile Methodologies. Palgrave McMillan; 2010: 30.
  51. [58]Peters M, Passchier J. Translating instruments for cross-cultural studies in headache research. Headache J Head Face Pain. 2006; 46(1): 82– 91. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00298.x 16412155 · DOI
  52. [59]Weeks A, Swerissen H, Belfrage J. Issues, challenges, and solutions in translating study instruments. Eval Rev. 2007; 31(2): 153– 165. doi: 10.1177/0193841X06294184 17356181 · DOI
  53. [60]Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. 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. Value Heal. 2005; 8(2): 94– 104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x 15804318 · DOI · Paper page
  54. [61]Reichenheim ME, Moraes CL. Operacionalização de adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de aferição usados em epidemiologia. Rev Saude Publica. 2007; 41(4): 665– 673. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102006005000035 17589768 · DOI
  55. [63]Hagell P, Hedin P-J, Meads DM, Nyberg L, McKenna SP. Effects of Method of Translation of Patient-Reported Health Outcome Questionnaires: a Randomized Study of the Translation of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) Instrument for Sweden. Value Heal. 2010; 13(4): 424– 430. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00677.x 20070642 · DOI
  56. [64]Lee WL, Chinna K, Lim Abdullah K, Zainal Abidin I. The forward‐backward and dual‐panel translation methods are comparable in producing semantic equivalent versions of a heart quality of life questionnaire. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019; 25(1). doi: 10.1111/ijn.12715 30515964 · DOI
  57. [65]Papadakis NM, Aletta F, Kang J, Oberman T, Mitchell A, Stavroulakis GE. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation methodology for soundscape attributes – a study with independent translation groups from English to Greek. Appl Acoust. 2022; 200: 109031. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2022.109031 · DOI
  58. [66]van de Vijver FJR, Poortinga YH. On the study of culture in developmental science. Hum Dev. 2002; 45(4): 246– 256. doi: 10.1159/000064985 · DOI
  59. [67]Petkovic J, Epstein J, Buchbinder R, et al. Toward ensuring health equity: readability and cultural equivalence of OMERACT patient-reported outcome measures. J Rheumatol. 2015; 42(12): 2448– 2459. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.141168 26077410 PMC4765994 · DOI
  60. [68]Bundgaard K, Nisbeth Brøgger M. “Don’t fix bad translations”: a netnographic study of translators’ understandings of back translation in the medical domain. MonTi Monogr Traducción e Interpret. 2018; 1(10): 205– 224. doi: 10.6035/MonTI.2018.10.8 · DOI
  61. [69]Hawkins M, Cheng C, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1): 130. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00962-8 32456680 PMC7249296 · DOI
  62. [70]Epstein J, Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Beaton DE, Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(4): 360– 369. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.013 24084448 · DOI
  63. [71]Teig CJP, Bond MJ, Grotle M, et al. A novel method for the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life patient-reported outcome measurements. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1): 13. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02089-y 36721146 PMC9890781 · DOI
  64. [72]Tsai T-I, Luck L, Jefferies D, Wilkes L. Challenges in adapting a survey: ensuring cross-cultural equivalence. Nurse Res. 2018; 26(1): 28– 32. doi: 10.7748/nr.2018.e1581 29856168 · DOI
  65. [73]Jayawickreme E, Jayawickreme N, Goonasekera MA. Using focus group methodology to adapt measurement scales and explore questions of wellbeing and mental health. Intervention. 2012; 10(2): 156– 167. doi: 10.1097/WTF.0b013e328356f3c4 · DOI
  66. [74]Montenegro M, Valdez D, Crawford B, Turner R, Lo W-J, Jozkowski KN. Using a decentering framework to create English/Spanish surveys about abortion: insights into comparative survey research (CSR) for new survey development and recommendations for optimal use. Soc Sci J. 2022; 1– 15. doi: 10.1080/03623319.2022.2092379 · DOI
  67. [75]Vizcaya-Moreno MF, Pérez-Cañaveras RM. Country validation of the CLES-Scale: linguistic and cultural perspectives. In: Saarikoski M, Strandell-Laine C, editors. The CLES-Scale: An Evaluation Tool for Healthcare Education. Springer; 2018: 31– 46.
  68. [77]Marcondes FB, de Vasconcelos RA, Marchetto A, de Andrade ALL, Filho AZ, Etchebehere M. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Rowe score for Portuguese. Acta Ortop Bras. 2012; 20(6): 346– 350. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000600007 24453630 PMC3861960 · DOI
  69. [78]Nepal GM, Shrestha A, Acharya R. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Nepali version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS). J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2019; 3(1). doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0132-3 PMC6639471 31321572 · DOI
  70. [79]Coll-Risco I, Camiletti-Moirón D, Acosta-Manzano P, Aparicio VA. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) into Spanish. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2019; 32(23): 3954– 3961. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1479849 29779431 · DOI
  71. [80]Pereira GIDN, Costa CDDS, Geocze L, Borim AA, Ciconelli RM, Camacho-Lobato L. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation for Portuguese (Brazil) of health related quality of life instruments specific for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arq Gastroenterol. 2007; 44(2): 168– 177. doi: 10.1590/s0004-28032007000200016 17962865 · DOI
  72. [81]Grundström H, Rauden A, Olovsson M. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Swedish version of Endometriosis Health Profile-30. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 2020; 40(7): 969– 973. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1676215 31909643 · DOI
  73. [82]Polesello GC, Godoy GF, De Castro Trindade CA, De Queiroz MC, Honda E, Ono NK. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the modified Hip outcome tool (mhot) into Portuguese. Acta Ortop Bras. 2012; 20(2): 88– 92. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000200006 24453587 PMC3718419 · DOI
  74. [83]Muquith MA, Islam MN, Haq SA, Ten Klooster PM, Rasker JJ, Yunus MB. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a Bengali version of the modified fibromyalgia impact questionnaire. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012; 13(1): 1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-157 22925458 PMC3493366 · DOI
  75. [84]Toma G, Guetterman TC, Yaqub T, Talaat N, Fetters MD. A systematic approach for accurate translation of instruments: experience with translating the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale into Arabic. Methodol Innov. 2017; 10(3): 205979911774140. doi: 10.1177/2059799117741406 · DOI
  76. [85]Poot CC, Meijer E, Fokkema M, Chavannes NH, Osborne RH, Kayser L. Translation, cultural adaptation and validity assessment of the Dutch version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: a mixed-method approach. BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1): 1006. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15869-4 37254148 PMC10227819 · DOI
  77. [86]Hasani L, Santoso H, Junus K. Instrument development for investigating students’ intention to participate in online discussion forums: cross-cultural and context adaptation sing SEM. J Educ Online. 2021; 18(3). doi: 10.9743/JEO.2021.18.3.9 · DOI
  78. [87]Bundgaard K, Brøgger MN. Who is the back translator? An integrative literature review of back translator descriptions in cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments. Perspectives (Montclair). 2019; 27(6): 833– 845. doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1544649 · DOI
  79. [88]Geisinger KF. Cross-cultural normative assessment: translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1994; 6(4): 304– 312. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304 · DOI
  80. [89]van Widenfelt BM, Treffers PDA, de Beurs E, Siebelink BM, Koudijs E. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2005; 8(2): 135– 147. doi: 10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1 15981582 · DOI
  81. [90]Son J. Back translation as a documentation tool. Int J Transl Interpret Res. 2018; 10(2): 89– 100. doi: 10.12807/ti.110202.2018.a07 · DOI
  82. [91]Coster WJ, Mancini MC. Recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Rev Ter Ocup da Univ São Paulo. 2015; 26(1): 50. doi: 10.11606/issn.2238-6149.v26i1p50-57 · DOI
  83. [92]Ortiz-Gutiérrez S, Cruz-Avelar A. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of health assessment tools. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas (English Ed. 2018; 109(3): 202– 206. doi: 10.1016/j.adengl.2018.02.003 29217225 · DOI
  84. [93]Ramada-Rodilla JM, Serra-Pujadas C, Delclós-Clanchet GL. Adaptación cultural y validación de cuestionarios de salud: revisión y recomendaciones metodológicas. Salud Publica Mex. 2013; 55(1): 57– 66. doi: 10.1590/S0036-36342013000100009 23370259 · DOI
  85. [94]Prakash V, Shah S, Hariohm K. Cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures: a solution or a problem? Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019; 62(3): 174– 177. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.01.006 30753895 · DOI
  86. [95]Fortes CPDD, Araújo de QC AP. Check list para tradução e adaptação transcultural de questionários em saúde. Cad Saúde Coletiva. 2019; 27(2): 202– 209. doi: 10.1590/1414-462x201900020002 · DOI
  87. [96]Hernández A, Hidalgo MD, Hambleton RK, Gómez-Benito J. International test commission guidelines for test adaptation: a criterion checklist. Psicothema. 2020; 32(3): 390– 398. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.306 32711675 · DOI
  88. [97]DuBay M, Watson LR. Translation and cultural adaptation of parent-report developmental assessments: improving rigor in methodology. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2019; 62: 55– 65. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2019.02.005 · DOI
  89. [98]Hall DA, Zaragoza Domingo S, Hamdache LZ, et al. A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. Int J Audiol. 2018; 57(3): 161– 175. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565 29161914 · DOI
  90. [100]Santo RM, Ribeiro-Ferreira F, Alves MR, Epstein J, Novaes P. Enhancing the cross-cultural adaptation and validation process: linguistic and psychometric testing of the Brazilian–Portuguese version of a self-report measure for dry eye. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(4): 370– 378. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.07.009 25619561 · DOI
  91. [102]Kyriazos TA. Applied psychometrics: the 3-Faced Construct Validation Method, a routine for evaluating a factor structure. Psychology. 2018; 09(08): 2044– 2072. doi: 10.4236/psych.2018.98117 · DOI
  92. [103]Plonsky L, Kim Y. Task-based learner production: a substantive and methodological review. Annu Rev Appl Linguist. 2016; 36: 73– 97. doi: 10.1017/S0267190516000015 · DOI
  93. [104]Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. Development of a scoping review protocol. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual.: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020
  94. [105]Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing clinical guidelines. West J Med. 1999; 170(6): 348– 351. 18751155 PMC1305691
  95. [106]OECD Eurostat and World Health Organization. Classification of Health Care Providers (ICHA-HP). In: A System of Health Accounts 2011. OECD Publishing; 2017: 121– 152. doi: 10.1787/9789264270985-en · DOI
  96. [108]Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick U, editor. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications; 2014: 170– 183.
  97. [109]World Health Organization. Introduction. In: WHO Handbook for Guideline Developement. 2nd ed. World Health Organization; 2014: 2
  98. [110]Pernambuco L, Espelt A, Magalhães Junior HV, Lima de KC. Recomendações para elaboração, tradução, adaptação transcultural e processo de validação de testes em fonoaudiologia. CoDAS. 2017; 29(3). doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20172016217 28614460 · DOI
  99. [113]Høegh MC, Høegh S-M. Trans-adapting outcome measures in rehabilitation: cross-cultural issues. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2009; 19(6): 955– 970. doi: 10.1080/09602010902995986 19588280 · DOI
  100. [115]Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5): 1147– 1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 29435801 PMC5891568 · DOI · Paper page
  101. [117]Gjersing L, Caplehorn JR, Clausen T. Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10(1): 13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-13 20144247 PMC2831007 · DOI
  102. [120]Wild D, Eremenco S, Mear I, et al. Multinational trials—Recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the Data: the ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force Report. Value Heal. 2009; 12(4): 430– 440. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00471.x 19138309 · DOI
  103. [121]Swami V, Barron D. Translation and validation of body image instruments: challenges, good practice guidelines, and reporting recommendations for test adaptation. Body Image. 2019; 31: 204– 220. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.014 30220631 · DOI · Paper page
  104. [124]Baker DL, Melnikow J, Ying Ly M, Shoultz J, Niederhauser V, Diaz-Escamilla R. Translation of health surveys using mixed methods. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010; 42(4): 430– 438. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01368.x 21091626 · DOI
  105. [125]Biering-Sørensen F, Alexander MS, Burns S, et al. Recommendations for translation and reliability testing of international spinal cord injury data sets. Spinal Cord. 2011; 49(3): 357– 360. doi: 10.1038/sc.2010.153 21060313 · DOI
  106. [126]Koller M, Aaronson NK, Blazeby J, et al. Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43(12): 1810– 1820. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.05.029 17689070 · DOI
  107. [127]Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005; 28(2): 212– 232. doi: 10.1177/0163278705275342 15851774 · DOI
  108. [128]Dhamani KA, Richter MS. Translation of research instruments: research processes, pitfalls and challenges. Afr J Nurs Midwifery. 2011; 13(1): 3– 13.
  109. [129]Sperber AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology. 2004; 126: S124– S128. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016 14978648 · DOI
  110. [130]Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002; 11(3): 193– 205. doi: 10.1023/a:1015291021312 12074258 · DOI
  111. [132]Swami V, Todd J, Barron D. Translation and validation of body image instruments: an addendum to Swami and Barron (2019) in the form of frequently asked questions. Body Image. 2021; 37: 214– 224. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.03.002 33725653 · DOI
  112. [133]Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5): 1159– 1170. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 29550964 PMC5891557 · DOI · Paper page
  113. [134]Yasir ASM. Cross Cultural Adaptation & Psychometric Validation of Instruments: step-wise Description. Int J Psychiatry. 2016; 1(1). doi: 10.33140/IJP/01/01/00001 · DOI
  114. [135]Regnault A, Herdman M. Using quantitative methods within the Universalist model framework to explore the cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome instruments. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24(1): 115– 124. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0722-8 24894383 · DOI
  115. [136]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10(1): 22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22 20298572 PMC2848183 · DOI
  116. [137]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4): 539– 549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 20169472 PMC2852520 · DOI · Paper page
  117. [139]Möhler R, Bartoszek G, Köpke S, Meyer G. Proposed criteria for reporting the development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare (CReDECI): guideline development. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012; 49(1): 40– 46. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.08.003 21924424 · DOI
  118. [141]Gudmundsson E. Guidelines for translating and adapting psychological instruments. Nord Psychol. 2009; 61(2): 29– 45. doi: 10.1027/1901-2276.61.2.29 · DOI
  119. [142]Forsyth BH, Kudela MS, Levin K, Lawrence D, Willis GB. Methods for translating an English-language survey questionnaire on tobacco use into mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, and Vietnamese. Field Methods. 2007; 19(3): 264– 283. doi: 10.1177/1525822X07302105 · DOI
  120. [143]American Psychological Association. Criteria for practice guideline development and evaluation. Am Psychol. 2002; 57(12): 1048– 1051. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1048 12617063 · DOI
  121. [144]Iliescu D. Pre-condition guidelines. In: Adapting Tests in Linguist and Cultural Adaptations. Cambridge University Press; 2017: 87.
  122. [145]Iliescu D. Documentation guidelines. In: Adapting Tests in Linguist and Cultural Adaptations. Cambridge University Press; 2017: 105.
  123. [146]Hambletom RK. Issues, designs and tecnical guidelines for adaptating tests into multiples languages and cultures. In: Hembletom RK, Merenda PF, Spilberg CD, editors. Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005: 3– 38.
  124. [147]Oakland T. Selected ethical issues relevant to test adaptations. In: Hambletom RK, Merenda PF, Spielberg CD, editors. Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005: 80.
  125. [148]Brislin RW, Lonner WJ, Thorndike RM. Cross cultural research methods. In: Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review. Vol. 12. John Wiley ans Sons; 1973: 7– 10. doi: 10.1177/136346157501200101 · DOI
  126. [150]Ozolins U, Hale S, Cheng X, Hyatt A, Schofield P. Translation and back-translation methodology in health research: a critique. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020; 20(1): 69– 77. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1734453 32089017 · DOI
  127. [151]Bornman J, Sevcik RA, Romski M, Pae HK. Successfully translating language and culture when adapting assessment measures. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2010; 7(2): 111– 118. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2010.00254.x · DOI
  128. [152]Simonsen E, Mortensen EL. Difficulties in translation of personality scales. J Pers Disord. 1990; 4(3): 290– 296. doi: 10.1521/pedi.1990.4.3.290 · DOI
  129. [155]van de Vijver F, Tanzer NK. Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. Eur Rev Appl Psychol. 2004; 54(2): 119– 135. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004 · DOI · Paper page
  130. [156]de Klerk S, Jerosch-Herold C, Buchanan H, van Niekerk L. Shared decision making and the practice of community translation in presenting a pre-final Afrikaans for the Western Cape Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire: a proposal for improved translation and cross-cultural adaptation. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2019; 3(1): 52. doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0144-z PMC6692802 31414190 · DOI
  131. [157]Erkut S. Developing multiple language versons of instruments for intercultural research. In: Ji M, editor. Cross-Cultural Health Translation: Exploring Methodological and Digital Tools. Routledge; 2019: 9– 10.
  132. [158]Silverblatt A, Zlobin N. Production elements. In: International Communications: A Media Literacy Approach. Routledge; 2015: 108.
  133. [159]St Amant K. A new web for the new millennium. In: Lipson C, Day M, editors. Technical Communication and the World Wide Web. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005: 148.
  134. [160]Drasgow F, Probst TM. The psicometrics of adaptation: evaluating measurement equivalance across languages and cultures. In: Hambletom RK, Merenda PF, Spielberg CD, editors. Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005: 361.
  135. [161]Erkut S, Alarcón O, Coll CG, Tropp LR, García HAV. The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1999; 30(2): 206– 218. doi: 10.1177/0022022199030002004 21552397 PMC3089010 · DOI
  136. [162]van der Vidjer F, Leung K. Equivalence and bias: a review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In: Matsumoto D, van de Vijver F, editors. Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology. Cambridge University Press; 2011: 17– 44.
  137. [164]van Teijlingen ER, Hundley V. Pilot study. In: Lewis-Back MS, Bryman A, Liao TF, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Vol II. Sage; 2004: 823– 824.
  138. [165]Gallagher PM. Pretest. In: Lewis-Back MS, Bryman A, Liao TF, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Vol II. Sage Publications; 2004: 853– 854.
  139. [166]Korabik K, van Rhijn T. Best practices in scale translation and establisment mesurement equivalence. In: Shockey KM, Shen W, Johnson RC, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface. Cambridge University Press; 2018: 212– 229.
  140. [167]Willis G. Pretesting of health survey questionnaires: cognitive interviewing, usability testing, and behavior coding. In: Johnson TP, editor. Handbook on Health Survey Methods. Willey; 2015: 221.
  141. [168]Rodrigues IB, Adachi JD, Beattie KA, MacDermid JC. Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1): 540. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1914-5 29258503 PMC5738121 · DOI
  142. [169]Perneger TV, Courvoisier DS, Hudelson PM, Gayet-Ageron A. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24(1): 147– 151. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0752-2 25008261 · DOI
  143. [170]Holyk GG. Question testing methods. In: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Vol II. Sage; 2008: 658– 659.
  144. [171]van der Zouwen J, Smit JH, et al. Evaluating survey questions by analyzing patterns of behavior codes and question–answer sequences: a diagnostic approach. In: Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, editors. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Wiley Interscience; 2004. 124.
  145. [172]Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003; 25(5): 508– 518. doi: 10.1177/0193945903252998 12955968 · DOI
  146. [173]Polit DF, Beck CT. Measurement and data quality. In: Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. 9th ed. Wolker Klumer / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012: 334.
  147. [174]Linden B, Stuart H. Preliminary analysis of validation evidence for two new scales assessing teachers’ confidence and worries related to delivering mental health content in the classroom. BMC Psychol. 2019; 7(1): 32. doi: 10.1186/s40359-019-0307-y 31182166 PMC6558920 · DOI
  148. [175]Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res. 2003; 27(2): 94– 104. doi: 10.1093/swr/27.2.94 · DOI · Paper page
  149. [176]Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2019; 15(2): 214– 221. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066 29606610 · DOI
  150. [177]DesRoches D. Establishment survey. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage; 2008: 124.
  151. [178]Kelly J, Lavrakas PJ. Debriefing. In: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Vol I. Sage; 2008: 181– 182.
  152. [179]Beatty P. Developing measures of health behavior and he alth service utilization. In: Johnson TP, editor. Handbook on Health Survey Methods. Willey; 2015: 186– 187.
  153. [180]Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30(4): 459– 467. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199 17654487 · DOI · Paper page
  154. [182]Polit DF, Beck CT. Qualitative research design and approaches. In: Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. 10th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2017: 489.
  155. [184]Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2014; 47(1): 79– 86. doi: 10.1177/0748175613513808 · DOI
  156. [185]Stone KS, Frazier SK. Evaluation of measurement precision, accuracy, and error in biophysical data. In: Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER, editors. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. 4th ed. Springer Publishing; 2010: 387– 390.
  157. [186]Cicchetti DV. On a model for assessing the security of infantile attachment: issues of observer reliability and validity. Behav Brain Sci. 1984; 7(1): 149– 150. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00026558 · DOI
  158. [188]Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011; 48(6): 661– 671. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016 21514934 · DOI
  159. [190]Lloret-Segura S, Ferreres-Traver A, Hernández-Baeza A, Tomás-Marco I. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. An Psicol. 2014; 30(3). doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361 · DOI
  160. [191]Field A. Why is my evil lecturer forcing me to learn statistics? In: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. Sage Publications; 2018: 70– 71.
  161. [192]Kothari CR. Multivariate analysis techniques. In: Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd ed. New Age Publisher; 2004: 322.
  162. [193]Haig BD. Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. In: Method Matters in Psychology: Essays in Applied Philosophy of Science. Springer; 2018: 65– 88.
  163. [194]Haig BD. Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behav Res. 2005; 40(3): 303– 329. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_2 26794686 · DOI
  164. [195]Råholm M-B. Abductive reasoning and the formation of scientific knowledge within nursing research. Nurs Philos. 2010; 11(4): 260– 270. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00457.x 20840137 · DOI
  165. [196]Prudon P. Confirmatory factor analysis as a tool in research using questionnaires: a critique. Compr Psychol. 2015; 4: 03.CP.4.10. doi: 10.2466/03.CP.4.10 · DOI
  166. [197]Eldridge J. Reliability, validity and trustworthiness. In: Boswell C, Cannon S, editors. Introduction to Nursing Research: Incorporating Evidence-Based Practice. 5th ed. Jones & Bartlettt Publishers; 2020: 271– 294.
  167. [198]Abu-Bader SH. Working with SPSS. In: Using Statistical Methods in Social Science Research: With a Complete SPS Guide. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2021: 56.
  168. [199]Perrin KM. Reliability and validity. In: Principles of Planning, Evaluation and Research for Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Jones &: Bartlett Learning; 2022: 141.
  169. [200]Grove SK. Quantitative measurement concepts. In: Gray JR, Grove SK, editors. Burns & Groves the Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence. 9th ed. Elsevier; 2021: 462.
  170. [201]Hair J, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, Chong AYL. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2017; 117(3): 442– 458. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130 · DOI · Paper page
  171. [202]Field A. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (North American Edition). 5th ed. Sage; 2018: 1390– 1391.
  172. [203]Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess. 2019; 31(12): 1412– 1427. doi: 10.1037/pas0000626 30896212 PMC6754793 · DOI · Paper page
  173. [205]Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cainey J. Basic concepts. In: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2015: 8.
  174. [206]Bryant F. Assessing the validity of measurement. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. American Psychological Association; 2002: 99– 146.
  175. [208]Sommer I, Larsen K, Nielsen CM, Stenholt BV, Bjørk IT. Improving clinical nurses’ development of supervision skills through an action learning approach. Nurs Res Pract. 2020; 2020: 1– 10. doi: 10.1155/2020/9483549 PMC7049863 32148957 · DOI
  176. [209]Bowling A. Quality of life: concepts, measurements and patient perception. In: Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services. 4th ed. Open University Press; 2014: 54.
  177. [210]Bot SM, Terwee CB, van der Windt DAWM, Boute LM, Dekker J, Vet de HCW. Psychometric evaluation of self-report questionnaires: the development of a checklist. In: Adér HJ, Mellenberg C, editors. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Research Methodology. Vu University; 2003: 161– 168.
  178. [211]Powers BA, Knapp TR. Face validity. In: Dictionary of Nursing Theory and Research. 3rd ed. Spinger Publishing; 2006: 63.
  179. [212]Soeken WKL. Validity of measures. In: Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. 4th ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2010: 163.
  180. [213]Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Seleting the itens. In: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 5th. Oxford University Press; 2015: 92.
  181. [214]Zumbo BD. Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In: Lissitz RW, editor. The Concept of Validity: Revisions, New Directions, and Applications. Information Age Publishing; 2009: 68.
  182. [215]Chan EKH. Standards and guidelines for validation practices: development and evaluation of measurement instruments. In: Zumbo BD, Chan EKH, editors. Validity and Validation in Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. Springer Publishing; 2014: 9– 24.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cruchinho, P., López-Franco, M. D., Capelas, M. L., Almeida, S., Bennett, P. M., Miranda da Silva, M., Teixeira, G., Nunes, E., Lucas, P., & Gaspar, F.
Affiliations
  • Nursing Research, Innovation and Development Centre of Lisbon (PT)
  • Universidad de Jaén (ES)
  • Universidade Católica Portuguesa (PT)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
Corresponding author
Cruchinho, Paulo
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2024-05
Volume
Volume 17
Pages
2701-2728
ISSN
1178-2390 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/jmdh.s419714
PMC
PMC11151507
OpenAlex
W4399245583
Cited by
469
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 294 · 2025: 167 · 2024: 8
FWCI
587.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
cross-cultural adaptation, cross-cultural validation, forward translation, back-translation, pretest, field testing, psychometric validation, psychometric properties, methodological recommendations, health sciences

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