Cited by 364Health Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cross Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of Research Instruments: a Methodological Review

Arafat, SM, Chowdhury, Hafizur, Qusar, MMA, Hafez, MA·2016·Journal of Behavioral Health

Abstract

Background: Psychometrics has a very important role and with the increase in the number of cross cultural research projects, there is need to adapt the scales to measure the health status. Objective: It was aimed to describe the validation process comprehensively based on recent practices and to overview a practical guideline of validation study. Method: Search was done in PubMed, PubMed Central & Google Scholar with searching key words ranging date from January 2000 to December 2015. Finally 78 articles were selected for review and through methodological review was done in accordance with the review objectives. Result: Review revealed that cultural adaptation followed similar steps with few variations. There was huge variation in study design, sampling technique & sample size. Cronbach’s alpha & test-retest reliability was mostly used form of reliability with variations in assessment of validity. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used more for statistical analysis & followed similar criteria with few variations. Conclusion: Cross cultural measurement of health outcomes is really an important and challenging issue that needs elaborative guideline to take appropriate steps to solve problems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5455/jbh.20160615121755

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • 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].”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arafat, S., Chowdhury, H., Qusar, M., & Hafez, M.
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Health
Publisher
ScopeMed
Published
2016
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
129
ISSN
2146-8346 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2461994724
Cited by
356
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
FWCI
44.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Behavioral Health (publishedVersion)
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, psychometric validation, health status measurement, scale adaptation, reliability statistics, validity, exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability, health outcome measurement

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