Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version of the Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI): Structural Validity, Construct Validity, Internal Consistency, and Test-retest Reliability | ||
| The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 11، شماره 1، فروردین 2023، صفحه 53-63 اصل مقاله (821.74 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2022.61697.3019 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Shirin Modarresi* 1؛ Maryam Farzad2؛ Erfan Shafiee3؛ Golale Modarresi4؛ Mahshad Maleki5؛ Enayatollah Bakhshi6؛ Seyed Ali Hosseini7؛ David Mark Walton3 | ||
| 1School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada | ||
| 2Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada- Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada | ||
| 4Spiritwood and District Health Complex, Spiritwood, SK, Canada | ||
| 5Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 6Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 7Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Background: The Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) is a generic importance-weighted health satisfaction tool to measure the process and state of recovery following musculoskeletal injuries. The objectives of this study are (1) to translate and cross-culturally adapt the SRI to Persian and (2) evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: The forward-backward translation technique was used for translation, and two rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted to assess cultural appropriateness. Participants (n=100, mean age=32.5, 82%male) had acute (i.e.,<30 days) musculoskeletal injuries of any etiology. Structural validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and testretest reliability were evaluated. Results: Participants identified issues in 3/6 areas of a coding system during the cognitive interviews: comprehension/clarity, relevance, and inadequate response definition. These issues informed subsequent changes to arrive at the final version of the SRI-P. The SRI-P had adequate construct validity (P<0.001), the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a two-factor structure, the internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s α=0.83), and it was deemed reliable (ICC2, 1=0.72). Conclusion: The psychometric evaluation revealed that the SRI-P has adequate construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Unlike the original English version, the SRI-P has a two-factor structure, which appears to be related to cultural differences in interpreting some of the items. The clinical importance of this study is that the SRI (which captures the state of recovery and how important the various items of the tool are to each patient and how satisfied they are with their recovery) can now be available to surgeons and therapists in the orthopedic and rehabilitation realms in Persian populations. Level of evidence: II | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Cross-cultural adaptation؛ Musculoskeletal injuries؛ Patient-reported outcome measure؛ Psychometric evaluation؛ Satisfaction and recovery Index | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(7):1087-1110. doi:10.1016/s0277- 9536(00)00098-8. 2. Lyman S, Hidaka C. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures-What Data Do We Really Need? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1144-1147. doi:10.1016/j. arth.2016.01.073 3. Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158-175. doi:10.1177/0269216313491619 4. Walton DM, Macdermid JC, Nielson W. Recovery from acute injury: Clinical, methodological and philosophical considerations. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(10). doi:10.3109/09638280903349511 5. Walton D. A review of the definitions of “recovery” used in prognostic studies on whiplash using an ICF framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(12):943-957. doi:10.1080/09638280802404128 6. Walton DM, MacDermid JC, Pulickal M, Rollack A, Veitch J. Development and Initial Validation of the Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) for Measurement of Recovery from Musculoskeletal Trauma. Open Orthop J. 2014;8:316-325. 7. Modarresi S, Walton DM. Reliability, discriminative accuracy, and an exploration of response shift as measured using the satisfaction and Recovery Index over 12 months from musculoskeletal trauma. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;51:102300. doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102300 8. Majedi H, Dehghani SS, Soleyman-Jahi S, et al. Validation of the Persian Version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-P) in Chronic Pain Patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(1):132-138.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.02.017 9. Stanhope J. Brief Pain Inventory review. Occup Med (Lond). 2016;66(6):496-497. doi:10.1093/occmed/ kqw041 10.Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632- 200012150-00014 11.Willis GB,eds. Cognitive Interviewing A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design.1st ed. Sage Publications; 2004. 12.Furtado R, MacDermid JC, Bryant DM, Faber KJ, Athwal GS. Interpretation and content validity of the items of the numeric rating version short-WORC to evaluate outcomes in management of rotator cuff pathology: a cognitive interview approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):88. doi:10.1186/s12955-020- 01339-7 13.MacDermid J. Cognitive interviewing (CI)-to identify sources of interpretation dissonance in in patientreported outcome measures (PRO). Lawson Research Institute. 2018:487-500. 14.Modarresi S, Modarresi G, Farzad M, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale to Persian. J Adv Med Sci Appl Technol. 2021. doi:10.30476/jamsat.2021.89502.1017 15.Mehta SP, Mhatre B, MacDermid JC, Mehta A. Crosscultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the Hindi version of the patient-rated wrist evaluation. J Hand Ther. 2012;25(1):65-77; quiz 78. doi:10.1016/j. jht.2011.08.001 16.Dancey C, Reidy J,eds. Statistics Without Maths for Psychology.5st ed. London: Pearson; 2017. 17.Jamil NI, Baharuddin FN, Sulaiman TT, Rosle AN, Harun AF. Exploratory Factor Analysis-Key to a Successful Mentoring Relationship. Journal of Advanced Research in Business and Management Studies. 2020 23;2(1):11-21. 18.Glorfeld LW. An Improvement on Horn’s Parallel Analysis Methodology for Selecting the Correct Number of Factors to Retain. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(3):377- 393. doi:10.1177/0013164495055003002 19.Çokluk Bökeoğlu Ö� , Koçak D. Using Horn’s Parallel Analysis Method in Exploratory Factor Analysis for Determining the Number of Factors. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 2016;16:537-551. doi:10.12738/ estp.2016.2.0328 20.Field A,eds. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. Sage; 2013. 21.DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 4th ed. Sage; 2016. 22.Costello AB, Osborne J. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis. Pract Assessment, Res Eval. 2005;10:1-9. 23.Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P. Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Pract Assessment, Res Eval. 2007;12(1):2. 24.Browne MW, Cudeck R, Bollen KA, Long JS. Testing Structural Equation Models. 1993:136-62 25.Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 26.Brown JD. The Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimate. Shiken JALT Test Eval SIG Newsl. 2002;6(1):17-19. 27.De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL,eds. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. 28.Fleissm JL, Levin B, Paik MC,eds. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003. 29.Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Crosscultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-1432. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n 30.Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual life Res. 2018;27(5):1171-1179. doi:10.1007/s11136-017- 1765-4 31.Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-55. doi:10.5116/ ijme.4dfb.8dfd | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 373 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 414 |
||