Simplified Chinese version of the dissociative experiences measure, Oxford

Study on the Simplified Chinese Version of the Voice Handicap Index

The Significant Others Scale (SOS) was simplified and then translated into Chinese. The equivalence between the original and simplified Chinese versions was then verified with participants recruited from a Chinese community. Thirty-one participants with mental disabilities were randomly selected from a mental hospital. The participants were assisted by a qualified occupational therapist to complete the original and simplified Chinese versions within a week period. The exceptionally high intraclass coefficients between the original and simplified Chinese versions (.81 to .99) suggested redundancy of items in the original version and thus provided statistical evidence for the simplification process. It is suggested that the simplified version can be used to replace the original one if time and manpower are limited for clinical and research purposes.

Assessing factor structure of the simplified Chinese version of Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument for undergraduates in Mainland China

BackgroundThe original version of Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella Questionnaire (VISA-P) is developed in English, and aimed to assess the severity of patellar tendinopathy symptoms. Before used in China, it should be translated to Chinese version.ObjectivesOur aim is to make a translation/cross-culturally adaption for the VISA-P into simplified Chinese version (VISA-PC). And primarily validate the VISA-PC in Chinese speaking population.MethodsThe translation process of VISA-P questionnaire into simplified Chinese version (VISP-PC) followed the International recognized guideline. Cross-cultural adaptation was carried out with a clinical measurement study. A total of 128 projects which consisted 33 healthy students, 39 patients with patellar tendinopathy and 56 military students (receive military training as at-risk population) were included into this study. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha, and test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Construct validity and floor and ceiling effects were also tested.ResultsThe scores were 95.84 ± 5.97 of healthy group, 91.87 ± 9.03 of at-risk group, 62.49 ± 11.39 of pathological group. There is no ceiling and floor effect of VISA-PC. The Cronbach’s alpha (0.895) and ICC (0.986) values showed good internal consistency and reliability. There were high correlations between VISA-PC and Kujala patellofemoral score (r = 0.721). VISA-PC score also had good correlation with the relevant SF-36 items.ConclusionThe VISA-PC was well translated into simplified Chinese version (VISA-PC), which is reliable and valid for Chinese-speaking patients with patellar tendinopathy.Level of evidenceII.

Cross-cultural adaptation and cross-sectional psychometric testing in a convenience sample of patients with low back pain. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) into a simplified Chinese version, and assess its reliability and validity. No simplified Chinese version of the JOABPEQ was previously available. We translated and culturally adapted the original English JOABPEQ to develop a Chinese version, based on cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used to confirm the factor structure of each subscale. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach alpha. Test-retest reliability was examined in stable patients, who completed the questionnaire again at 4 days to 2 weeks from baseline. The validity of the translated Chinese version was assessed by examining the relationship between the JOABPEQ and Chinese versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Ceiling and floor effects were considered present if more than 15% of respondents achieved the lowest or highest possible total score. The JOABPEQ showed excellent internal consistency (α = 0.886). The test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) ranged from 0.951 to 0.977. The convergent validity of the Chinese version was supported by its high correlation with other physical functional status measures (RMDQ, ODI, and SF-36 Physical Function; r values from -0.645 to -0.726), and moderate correlation with other measures (SF-36 Bodily pain and Social functioning subscales; r values 0.426-0.546). Q5 Mental health was highly correlated with SF-36 items (r values 0.337-0.640). There was a floor effect in Q1 low back pain (38, 20.65%). The results indicate that the simplified Chinese version of the JOABPEQ is a reliable and valid instrument to measure the multidimensional status in patients with low back pain. 4.

Translation, Adaptation, and Validation of Revised Colorectal Cancer Perception and Screening Instrument among First-Degree Relatives of People with Colorectal Cancer in China

Validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-C30 from the measurements of five types of inpatients with cancer

Although the Oxford Hip Score has been translated and validated in several languages, there is currently no Chinese version of the outcomes measurement. Our study aims to crossculturally adapt and validate the Oxford Hip Score into a simplified Chinese version. We tested the (1) reliability; (2) validity; and (3) responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score. First we translated the Oxford Hip Score into simplified Chinese, then back into English, then held a consensus meeting to achieve the final simplified Chinese version. Then we evaluated the psychometric properties of Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). All patients undergoing THA between July and December 2012 were invited to participate in this study; a total of 108 (79% of 136 invited) did so. To assess the test-retest validity, all participants completed the Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score again with a 2-week interval. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the construct validity between the Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score and visual analog scale (VAS), Harris hip score, and eight individual domains of the SF-36. Responsiveness was demonstrated by comparing the pre- and postoperative scores of the Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score. The test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (0.937) and internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha (0.91) were excellent. The Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score correlated with the Harris hip score (0.89, p < 0.01), VAS (-0.79, p < 0.01), and Physical Functioning (0.79, p < 0.01) and Bodily Pain (0.70, p < 0.01) domains of SF-36, which suggested construct validity. No floor or ceiling effects were found. The effect size and standardized response mean values were 3.52 and 3.31, respectively, indicating good responsiveness. The Chinese version of the Oxford Hip Score showed good reliability, validity, and responsiveness in evaluating standard Chinese-speaking patients with hip osteoarthritis undergoing THA. It can be used by clinical surgeons as a complement to the traditional outcome measures.

To translate quality of life questionnaire of the European foundation for osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-31) into a simplified Chinese version, and test its reliability and validity in osteoporosis patients from mainland Chinese population. Postmenopausal osteoporosis women with history of vertebral fracture were included as cases, and age-matched healthy female were included as controls. All subjects were from mainland China. The simplified Chinese version of QUALEFFO-31 and SF-36 were assigned to the two groups. Reliability was assessed using kappa statistics of agreement for each item and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's α. Pearson's correlation was used to assess convergent and discriminant validity. Overall, 66 cases and 66 age-matched controls were included. The ICC for the test-retest reliability ranged from 0.76 to 0.91. Cronbach's α for pain, physical function, and mental function domains were 0.94, 0.87, and 0.79, respectively. Convergent validity and discriminant validity showed that each correlation coefficient between score of each item with total score of related domain was higher than that with total score of unrelated domain. Pearson's correlation coefficients indicated significantly high correlations between corresponding domains of QUALEFFO-31 and SF-36. The simplified Chinese version of the QUALEFFO-31 is a reliable and valid outcome measure of functional status in patients with osteoporosis. This Chinese version of the QUALEFFO-31 can be utilized for future clinical studies in mainland China.

BackgroundThe provision of palliative care for neonates who are not expected to survive has been slow in mainland China, and this model of care remains in its early stages. Evaluating nurses' attitudes toward neonatal palliative care (NPC) has the potential to provide valuable insight into barriers impeding NPC implementation. This study aimed to translate and adapt the traditional Chinese version of the Neonatal Palliative Care Attitude Scale (NiPCAS) into Simplified Chinese to assess its psychometric properties.MethodsThe NiPCAS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure nurses' attitudes for evidence-based practice. To date, the scale has not been used largely in mainland China. With translation and cultural adaptation, the traditional Chinese version of the NiPCAS was developed into a Simplified Chinese version. Its reliability was tested using internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and its validity was measured using the content validity index and exploratory factor analysis.ResultsA total of 595 neonatal nurses from mainland China were recruited. Twenty-six items in the scale were translated into Simplified Chinese. The scale demonstrated excellent reliability with a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.87 and a test-retest reliability of 0.88. To support the Simplified Chinese version of NiPCAS, the scale content validity score was 0.98, and the exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors representing the conceptual dimensions of the scale.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the psychometric properties of the Simplified Chinese version of NiPCAS, validated its use as a viable tool for measuring neonatal nurses' attitudes toward NPC, and identified facilitators and barriers to NPC adoption. Our findings suggested supported clinical application in the context of mainland China. A confirmatory factor-analysis approach with a different sample of neonatal nurses is required for further testing of the instrument in the future.

There is a wide variation in the quality of information available to patients on the treatment of the diseases afflicting them. To help patients find clear and accessible information, many scales have been designed to evaluate the quality of health information, including the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool; the Suitability Assessment of Materials for evaluation of health-related information for adults; and DISCERN, an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. These instruments are primarily in English. Few of them have been translated and adapted into simplified Chinese tools for health information assessment in China. This study aimed to translate and adapt DISCERN into the first simplified Chinese version and validate the psychometric properties of this newly developed scale for judging the quality of patient-oriented health information on treatment choices. First, we translated DISCERN into simplified Chinese using rigorous guidelines for translation and validation studies. We tested the translation equivalence and measured the content validity index. We then presented the simplified Chinese instrument to 3 health educators and asked them to use it to assess the quality of 15 lung cancer-related materials. We calculated the Cohen κ coefficient and Cronbach α for all items and for the entire scale to determine the reliability of the new tool. We decided on the simplified Chinese version of the DISCERN instrument (C-DISCERN) after resolving all problems in translation, adaptation, and content validation. The C-DISCERN was valid and reliable: the content validity index was 0.98 (47/48, 98% of the items) for clarity and 0.94 (45/48, 94% of the items) for relevance, the Cronbach α for internal consistency was .93 (95% CI 0.699-1.428) for the whole translated scale, and the Cohen κ coefficient for internal consistency was 0.53 (95% CI 0.417-0.698). C-DISCERN is the first simplified Chinese version of the DISCERN instrument. Its validity and reliability have been attested to assess the quality of patient-targeted information for treatment choices.

The Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS) has been developed to evaluate pain anxiety, which leads to avoidance of daily activities and normal movements. However, a simplified Chinese version of PASS is still not available. Physicians are not aware of which patients are prone to anxiety, and what the risk factors are.To cross-culturally adapt the PASS into a simplified Chinese version and test the reliability and validity. Factors affecting pain anxiety were also explored.The PASS was first translated into a simplified Chinese version according to a forward-backward method. Then, validations were tested including content validity, construct validity, and reliability. Content validity was analyzed by response trend. Construct validity was analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis, and priori hypotheses testing. Reliability was analyzed by internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Risk factors of catastrophizing were analyzed by performing multivariate liner regression.A total of 219 patients were included in the study. The scores of items were well distributed. Both CFA and exploratory factor analysis suggested a 2nd-order, 4-factor model, accounting for 65.42% of the total variance according to principle component analysis. SC-PASS obtained good reliability with a Cronbach α = 0.92 and ICC = 0.90. College education, long pain duration, and both married and divorced status were risk factors. Factors reduced pain-related anxiety were no medication assumption, female sex, widowed status, non-Han ethnicity, and having no religious belief.The SC-PASS was applicable in Chinese patients and it was suitable for the clinical uses in mainland China.

To translate and cross-culturally adapt Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) Questionnaire into a Simplified Chinese version (QuickDASH-C), and evaluate the reliability and validity of the QuickDASH-C in patients with upper limb disorders. Cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to the internationally recognized guidelines of American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Outcome Committee. A total of 150 participants were recruited in this study. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine test-retest reliability. Construct validity was analyzed by evaluating the correlations between QuickDASH-C and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS) as well as the short form (36) health survey (SF-36). The original version of the QuickDASH was well cross-culturally adapted and translated into Simplified Chinese. QuickDASH-C was indicated to have excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.818, ICC = 0.907). QuickDASH-C correlated almost perfectly to DASH (r = 0.820, p < 0.001). Moderate to substantial correlations between QuickDASH-C and VAS (r= 0.463, p < 0.001), as well as physical function (r = - 0.630, p < 0.001), role physical (r = - 0.471, p < 0.001), bodily pain (r = - 0.563, p < 0.001) and general health (r = - 0.414, p < 0.001) subscales of SF-36, were observed. QuickDASH-C was demonstrated to have excellent acceptability, reliability, and validity in patients with upper limb disorders, which could be recommended for patients in mainland China. • This study translated and cross-culturally adapted Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire into a Simplified Chinese version. • The reliability and validity of Simplified Chinese version of QuickDASH were good in evaluating patients with upper limb disorders.

BackgroundThe Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) is a free clinical tool commonly used to evaluate the symptoms and functional status of patients with knee injury. For people who speak Chinese, the Hong Kong Chinese and Singapore Chinese versions are preferred. However, variations in the Chinese language and culture are influenced by the country’s geography. KOOS for Mainland China has not been reported. Therefore, the current study was to cross-culturally translate the original English version into a simplified Chinese version and to investigate its psychometric properties.MethodsThe simplified Chinese KOOS was obtained through forward-backward translation according to appropriate guidelines. A total of 158 individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) were recruited from 13 hospitals in China to examine the psychometric properties. The test-retest questionnaire was performed at an interval of 5–7 days. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. The data of the first test were used to analyse the construct validity of the simplified Chinese KOOS and Chinese SF-36 through convergent and discriminant validity using Spearman’s correlation coefficient.ResultsCross-cultural translation exhibited minor cultural differences, and the questionnaire was well understood by the patients. The data from 128 patients, used for the test-retest reliability study, showed good to excellent reliability, with an ICC of 0.808–0.976 for all KOOS subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha for all subscales ranged from 0.757 to 0.970, indicating acceptable internal consistency. There was a low-to-high correlation between the five domains of the simplified Chinese version of the KOOS and all domains of the SF-36 in construct validity.ConclusionThe simplified Chinese KOOS demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. In clinical practice and research, this version can help provide valuable information on health-related quality of life for Chinese individuals with KOA in mainland China.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation were performed on the Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The objective of this study was to translate and adapt the ODI into simplified Chinese and to then validate its use in Chinese patients with low back pain. A traditional Chinese version of the ODI (TCODI) has been developed and used in Hong Kong. However, there is no simplified Chinese version of the ODI (SCODI). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the latest version of the ODI (2.1a) were performed following instructions from the published international guidelines. The translation procedure included forward translation, back translation, and a discussion among experts. The prefinal version was tested in 40 outpatients with LBP. Then, 179 patients with LBP, including 140 outpatients and 39 inpatients, participated in the final test. They finished the SCODI, the Short-Form 36, and the Visual Analog Scale. Those 39 inpatients also finished a second ODI questionnaire within 24 hours. Last, the SCODI and TCODI were tested in another 25 inpatients for comparison. All of the patients in the prefinal test understood the simplified Chinese version correctly. In the final test, Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was 0.93. A very high intraclass correlation coefficient was observed (ICC = 0.99) in the test-retest group. The SCODI showed a significant correlation with the 8 subscales of the Short-Form 36, especially in physical functioning (r = 0.78, P < 0.001). There was a moderate correlation between the ODI scores and the Visual Analog Scale (r = 0.69, P < 0.001). A significant difference in the mean score was demonstrated between the SCODI and the TCODI. Patients who participated in the comparison test all agreed that the SCODI was easier to understand than the TCODI. The results showed that the translation and adaptation were successful. The SCODI has proven to be valid and reliable when used in the simplified Chinese speaking population.