Title
|
Validity and reliability of the Spanish sign language version of the KIDSCREEN-27 health -related quality of life questionnaire for use in deaf children and adolescents |
The challenges of translating the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation -outcome measure (CORE-OM) into British sign language |
The British sign language versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 - item Scale, and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale |
The reliability of British sign language and English versions of the clinical outcomes in routine Evaluation - outcome measure with d/deaf populations in the UK: an initial study |
Is it really clear? Adapting research tools for the needs of the deaf population |
Translation of the multidimensional health locus of control scales for users of American sign language |
Psychometric properties of a sign language version of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) |
Instruments in Brazilian sign language for assessing the quality of life of the deaf population |
Challenges in language, culture, and modality: translating English measures into American sign language |
Journal
|
Gaceta Sanitaria
|
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education |
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education |
Health and Social Care in the Community |
Journal of Social Work |
Public Health Nursing |
BMC Psychiatry |
Revista de Saúde Pública
|
Nursing Research |
Authors
|
Pardo-Guijarro et al.77 Pardo-Guijarro MJ, Woll B, Moya-Martínez P, Martínez-Andrés M, Cortés-Ramírez EE, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Validity and reliability of the Spanish sign language version of the KIDSCREEN-27 health-related quality of life questionnaire for use in deaf children and adolescents. Gac Sanit. 2013 Jul-Aug; 27(4):318-24.
|
Rogers et al.88 Rogers KD, Young A, Lovell K, Evans C. The challenges of translating the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) into British Sign Language. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2013; 18(3):287-98.
|
Rogers et al.99 Rogers KD, Young A, Lovell K, Campbell M, Scott PR, Kendal S. The British Sign Language versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7- item Scale, and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2013; 18(1):110-22. Erratum in: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2013; 18(3):427
|
Rogers et al.1010 Rogers K, Evans C, Campbell M, Young A, Lovell K. The reliability of British sign language and English versions of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure with d/deaf populations in the UK: an initial study. Health Soc Care Community. 2014; 22(3):278-89.
|
Levinger e Ronem1111 Levinger M, Ronen T. Is it really clear? Adapting research tools for the needs of the deaf population. J Soc Work [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2017 Jul 8]; 8(4):399-430. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468017308094992
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...
|
Samady et al.1212 Samady W, Sandler GR, Nakaju M, Malcarne VL, Trybus R, Athale N. Translation of the multidimensional health locus of control scales for users of American sign language. Public Health Nurs [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2017 Jul 8]; 25(5):480-9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
|
Øhre et al.1313 Øhre B, Saltnes H, von Tetzchner S, Falkum E. Psychometric properties of a sign language version of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). BMC Psychiatry. 2014; 14:148.
|
Chaveiro et al.1414 Chaveiro N, Duarte SB, Freitas AR, Barbosa MA, Porto CC, Fleck MP. Instruments in Brazilian sign language for assessing the quality of life of the deaf population. Rev Saude Publica. 2013; 47(3):616-23.
|
Jones et al.1515 Jones EG, Mallinson RK, Phillips L, Kang Y. Challenges in language, culture, and modality: translating English measures into American sign language. Nurs Res. 2006; 55(2):75-81.
|
Instruments
|
KIDSCREEN-27 |
CORE-OM |
PHQ, GAD-7 and WSAS |
CORE-OM |
Self-Esteem Scale, MIS, Intimacy Capability Questionnaire e DIDS |
MHLC |
MINI |
WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-Dis |
SRAHP |
Main results or guidelines by authors
|
Good confirmatory analysis and internal consistency, being reliable for use with the sample. Instrument validated for Spanish deaf adolescents only |
The study recommends detailed phases for a successful translation process. Suggests submitting the instrument to a validation process |
Good reliability and with positive correlation for anxiety items of CORE-OM and GAD-7. Instrument validated for the deaf population |
Good reliability of instrument with validation for deaf population in sign language and British written language versions. Authors recommend the sign language version as reliable for the population |
Three versions were elaborated for each instrument, being: original version, version with simplified writing and video version. For future research, the authors suggest the development of computer programs that offer different versions, but without involving interpreters |
Translation by focus group with justifiable and appropriate protocol. Working with groups instead of isolated interpreters was suggested. Mentions that the next phase is the validation |
Appropriate reliability and validity for diagnoses of mental illnesses in deaf people. Validated instrument for Norwegian deaf population |
Need for adaptations in focus group method involving deaf people. Difficulties to graphically register the translation phases due to non-consolidated ortographic conventions in sign language and Portuguese idiomatic expressions. Does not mention validation |
Acceptable internal consistency. Difficulty to recruit sample for test phase. The author suggests that the methods used are appropriate for studies involving similar populations |
Translation protocol
|
Two translations; two back translations; final assessment by a group of expert judges. Creation of a software to publish the translation |
Individualized translation and back translation process involving bilingual deaf people, with discussion and adjustment by researchers and authors of the study and pilot test in online version |
Individual translation process with five bilingual deaf people among interpreters, health professional and other professionals, synthesis phase of translations, back translation and production of final filmed version |
Independent translation by five deaf people (deaf and professional interpreters), synthesis of translation versions, back translation by two separate people and independent from the study involving a test, with production of final version after adjustments |
Individualized translation and back translation process with bilingual deaf and hearing people. The video version was analyzed individually and by four judges. During the collection, the respondents could request an interpreter for simultaneous translation |
Translation and back translation process through focus group with bilingual deaf people and interpreters with high education levels |
Translation and back translation process by groups of bilingual deaf and hearing people, with final filmed version after discussion and adjustments by research group |
Translation based on 13 phases proposed by WHO for instrument validation. Processes of translation, back translation, focus groups, review by monolingual, bilingual group, recording and development of software in Brazilian sign language |
Translation based on model adapted from Brislin elaborated for oral language, using derived etic paradigm. Mixing individualized translation process with group translations |
Country and sign language
|
Spain, Spanish sign language |
United Kingdom, British sign language |
United Kingdom, British sign language |
United Kingdom, British sign language |
Israel, Israeli sign language |
United States, American sign language |
Norway, Norwegian sign language |
Brazil, Brazilian sign language |
United States, American sign language |