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

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_SANTO_Enhancing_the_crosscultural_adaptation_and_validation_process_linguistic_2015.PDF (513.73 KB)
Citações na Scopus
33
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Autores
EPSTEIN, Jonathan
Citação
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, v.68, n.4, p.370-378, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objectives: To provide a reliable, validated, and culturally adapted instrument that may be used in monitoring dry eye in Brazilian patients and to discuss the strategies for the enhancement of the cross-cultural adaptation and validation process of a self-report measure for dry eye. Methods: The cross-cultural adaptation process (CCAP) of the original Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) into Brazilian Portuguese was conducted using a 9-step guideline. The synthesis of translations was tested twice, for face and content validity, by different subjects (focus groups and cognitive interviews). The expert committee contributed on several steps, and back translations were based on the final rather than the prefinal version. For validation, the adapted version was applied in a prospective longitudinal study to 101 patients from the Dry Eye Clinic at the General Hospital of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Simultaneously to the OSDI, patients answered the short form-36 health survey (SF-36) and the 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25) and underwent clinical evaluation. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measure validity were assessed. Results: Cronbach's alpha value of the cross-culturally adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of the OSDI was 0.905, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.801. There was a statistically significant difference between OSDI scores in patients with dry eye (41.15 +/- 27.40) and without dry eye (17.88 +/- 17.09). There was a negative association between OSDI and VFQ-25 total score (P < 0.01) and between the OSDI and five SF-36 domains. OSDI scores correlated positively with lissamine green and fluorescein staining scores (P < 0.001) and negatively with Schirmer test I and tear break-up time values (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Although most of the reviewed guidelines on CCAP involve well-defined steps (translation, synthesis/reconciliation, back translation, expert committee review, pretesting), the proposed methodological steps have not been applied in a uniform way. The translation and adaptation process requires skill, knowledge, experience, and a considerable investment of time to maximize the attainment of semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence between the source and target questionnaires. A well-established guideline resulted in a culturally adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of the OSDI, tested and validated on a sample of Brazilian population, and proved to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing patients with dry eye syndrome in Brazil.
Palavras-chave
Questionnaires, Self-report measure, Ocular Surface Disease Index, Cross-cultural adaptation, Validation studies, Translation, Dry eye
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/9818
Referências
  1. Smith JA, 2007, OCUL SURF, V5, P93
  2. Arredondo EM, 2012, J PHYS ACT HEALTH, V9, pS37
  3. Beaton DE, 2000, SPINE, V25, P3186, DOI 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  4. Bracher ESB, 2010, QUAL LIFE RES, V19, P847, DOI 10.1007/s11136-010-9637-1
  5. Breugelmans R, 2009, CHEST, V136, P1175, DOI 10.1378/chest.09-1684
  6. Brislin R. W., 1973, CROSS CULTURAL RES M
  7. Ciconelli RM, 1999, REV BRAS REUMATOL, V39, P143
  8. CRONBACH LJ, 1951, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V16, P297
  9. Dougherty BE, 2011, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V52, P8630, DOI 10.1167/iovs.11-8027
  10. Epstein J, 2015, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V68, P435, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
  11. Fuentes-Páez G, 2011, Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol, V86, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.oftal.2010.07.004
  12. Geisinger KF, 1994, PSYCHOL ASSESSMENT, V6, P304, DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304
  13. Gothwal VK, 2010, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V51, P1401, DOI 10.1167/iovs.09-4180
  14. GUILLEMIN F, 1993, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V46, P1417, DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
  15. Herdman M, 1998, QUAL LIFE RES, V7, P323, DOI 10.1023/A:1008846618880
  16. HOLLY FJ, 1973, EXP EYE RES, V15, P515, DOI 10.1016/0014-4835(73)90064-X
  17. Lemp MA, 2007, OCUL SURF, V5, P75
  18. Jacobi C, 2011, KLIN MONATSBL AUGENH, V228, P226, DOI 10.1055/s-0029-1245272
  19. Lemp MA, 1995, EYE CONTACT LENS, V21, P221
  20. Mangione CM, 2001, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V119, P1050
  21. Miller KL, 2010, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V128, P94, DOI 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.356
  22. Perneger TV, 1999, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V52, P1037, DOI 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00088-8
  23. Prigol AM, 2012, ARQ BRAS OFTALMOL, V75, P24, DOI 10.1590/S0004-27492012000100005
  24. Schiffman EM, 2001, 3 ANN WORKSH PHARM O
  25. Schiffman RM, 2000, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V118, P615
  26. Simao LM, 2008, ARQ BRAS OFTALMOL, V71, P540, DOI 10.1590/S0004-27492008000400014
  27. Skalicky SE, 2012, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V153, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.05.033
  28. Tennant A, 2007, ARTHRIT RHEUM-ARTHR, V57, P1358, DOI 10.1002/art.23108
  29. US Food and Drug Administration, GUID IND PAT REP OUT
  30. VANBIJST.OP, 1969, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V82, P10
  31. VanDerMeid KR, 2012, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V53, P1512, DOI 10.1167/iovs.11-7627
  32. Van Went C, 2011, J FR OPHTALMOL, V34, P230, DOI 10.1016/j.jfo.2010.11.010
  33. Walt JG, 1997, DRUG INF J, V31, P1136
  34. WARE JE, 1992, MED CARE, V30, P473, DOI 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOF
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InRad
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/33