Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0935-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
IRB approval. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Salvatore Maugeri Foundation’s Scientific Institute in Lissone.
The Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22) has been translated into various languages and tested in patients with scoliosis. However, the translations and their psychometric properties have never been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and to provide the current level of evidence of all the available translations of the SRS-22 using the “COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments” (COSMIN).
A systematic review was performed. The PubMed, Medline, EMbase, and CINAHL databases were searched for articles concerning the translations of the SRS-22 and/or evaluating any of their measurement properties. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and the psychometric estimates of the selected studies by using the 4-point rating scale COSMIN checklist and a validated quality assessment criteria, respectively. The level of evidence of each psychometric property per language was determined combining COSMIN outcomes and psychometric results.
The search strategy led to 24 articles evaluating the SRS-22 in 17 different languages. The methodological quality of the properties was mostly poor to fair, and there was a lack of information regarding them. The overall assessment was positive in 42.5 % of cases. The level of evidence resulted in a limited positive evidence in 11 languages.
The Chinese (traditional), Dutch, Italian, Norwegian, and Spanish translations are advisable; the Greek, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Thai, and Turkish translations showed encouraging results but should be used with caution; the Brazilian, Chinese (simplified), Polish, and Swedish translations showed contradictory or scarce results, and no suggestions can be formulated; the French Canadian and German translations did not provide methodologically sound information. Further attention should be given to cross-cultural and structural validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. J. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. PubMedCrossRef
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., Bouter, L., & Editorial Board CBRG. (2003). Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine, 28(12), 1290–1299. PubMed
Rosanova, G. C., Gabriel, B. S., Camarini, P. M., Gianini, P. E., Coehlo, D. M., & Oliveira, A. S. (2010). Concurrent validity of the Brazilian version of SRS-22r with Br-SF-36. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, 14(2), 121–126. PubMed
Schlösser, T. P., Stadhouder, A., Schimmel, J. J., Lehr, A. M., van der Heijden, G. J., & Castelein, R. M. (2013). Reliability and validity of the adapted Dutch version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society 22-item Questionnaire. The Spine Journal,. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.046.
Potoupnis, M., Papavasiliou, K., Kenanidis, E., Pellios, S., Kapetanou, A., Sayegh, F., & Kapetanos, G. (2012). Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Greek version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r Questionnaire. A cross-sectional study performed on conservatively treated patients. Hippokratia, 16(3), 225–229. PubMedCentralPubMed
Monticone, M., Baiardi, P., Calabrò, D., Calabrò, F., & Foti, C. (2010). Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: Cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine, 35(24), E1412–E1417. PubMedCrossRef
Mousavi, S. J., Mobini, B., Mehdian, H., Akbarnia, B., Bouzari, B., Askary-Ashtiani, A., et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r Questionnaire. Spine, 35(7), 784–789. PubMed
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. CrossRef
Fayers, P. M., Curran, D., & Machin, D. (1998). Incomplete quality of life data in randomized trials: Missing items. Statics in Medicine, 17(5–7), 679–696. CrossRef
Terwee, C. B., Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Koes, B. W., & de Vet, H. C. (2011). Methodological quality of studies on the measurement properties of neck pain and disability questionnaires: A systematic review. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 34(4), 261–272. PubMedCrossRef
Lai, S. M., Asher, M. A., Burton, D. C., & Carlson, B. B. (2010). Identification of Scoliosis Research Society-22r health-related quality of life questionnaire domains using factor analysis methodology. Spine, 35(12), 1236–1240. PubMed
- Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review
- Springer International Publishing