26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ): Translation and Cognitive Debriefing of the Arabic Version

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study was to translate the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ) from English into Arabic and perform cognitive debriefing in a Saudi Arabian setting. We conducted the translation according to guidelines, including two independent forward translations and a backward translation. Cognitive debriefing was carried out in two stages. First, the pre-final translated versions of the two questionnaires were tested on a group of respondents ( n = 5) using face-to-face or telephone interviews. The participants completed a copy of the questionnaires, identified items or questions that were confusing or misunderstood, and then answered a series of open-ended questions about their understanding of each instruction, question and response option. Second, another group of participants ( n = 17) completed the questionnaire and circled any word that was confusing or difficult to understand and provided comments on the questionnaires. The Arabic translation and linguistic validation were realized without any major difficulties. The few changes made after cognitive debriefing generally related to changing one word to a more appropriate Arabic word. The final Arabic translation needs to be validated for psychometric properties such as validity and reliability before being recommended for use in future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            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.

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

              Purpose The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. Methods For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Results Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. Conclusions The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                06 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 18
                : 14
                : 7232
                Affiliations
                Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh 14511, Saudi Arabia; salaujan@ 123456ksu.edu.sa (S.S.A.); salmazrou@ 123456ksu.edu.sa (S.H.A.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: salageel@ 123456ksu.edu.sa
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0571-7230
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1973-6870
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-2913
                Article
                ijerph-18-07232
                10.3390/ijerph18147232
                8303958
                34299684
                efe269ef-2cd5-4e7e-9fca-d9d2f29f86fc
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 07 May 2021
                : 02 July 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                costs and cost analysis,surveys and questionnaires,translating
                Public health
                costs and cost analysis, surveys and questionnaires, translating

                Comments

                Comment on this article