Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of yoruba version of the short-form 36 health survey

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Olumide Ayoola Olaoye³  Opeyemi Ayodiipo Idowu⁵  Taofeek Oluwole Awotidebe³  Adesanmi Akinsulore⁴  Rufus Adesoji Adedoyin³  Michael Opeoluwa Ogunlana²  Gafar Atanda Adeogun³  Chidozie Emmanuel Mbada¹ 

[1] African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya;Department of Physiotherapy, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, Nigeria;Department of Medical Rehabilitation, College of Health Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, Nigeria;Department of Mental Health, College of Health Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, Nigeria;Department of Physiotherapy, School of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria

关键词: Psychometric properties;    Cultural adaptation;    Translation;    Yoruba SF-36;    Health-related quality of life;   

Others  :  1225326
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-015-0337-y

 received in 2014-12-11, accepted in 2015-09-02,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background and objective

The Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) is a valid quality of life tool often employed to determine the impact of medical intervention and the outcome of health care services. However, the SF-36 is culturally sensitive which necessitates its adaptation and translation into different languages. This study was conducted to cross-culturally adapt the SF-36 into Yoruba language and determine its reliability and validity.

Methods

Based on the International Quality of Life Assessment project guidelines, a sequence of translation, test of item-scale correlation, and validation was implemented for the translation of the Yoruba version of the SF-36. Following pilot testing, the English and the Yoruba versions of the SF-36 were administered to a random sample of 1087 apparently healthy individuals to test validity and 249 respondents completed the Yoruba SF-36 again after two weeks to test reliability. Data was analyzed using Pearson’s product moment correlation analysis, independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance, multi trait scaling analysis and Intra-Class Correlation (ICC) at p < 0.05.

Results

The concurrent validity scores for scales and domains ranges between 0.749 and 0.902 with the highest and lowest scores in the General Health (0.902) and Bodily Pain (0.749) scale. Scale-level descriptive result showed that all scale and domain scores had negative skewness ranging from −2.08 to −0.98. The mean scores for each scales ranges between 83.2 and 88.8. The domain scores for Physical Health Component and Mental Health Component were 85.6 ± 13.7 and 85.9 ± 15.4 respectively. The convergent validity was satisfactory, ranging from 0.421 to 0.907. Discriminant validity was also satisfactory except for item ‘1’. The ICC for the test-retest reliability of the Yoruba SF-36 ranges between 0.636 and 0.843 for scales; and 0.783 and 0.851 for domains.

Conclusion

The data quality, concurrent and discriminant validity, reliability and internal consistency of the Yoruba version of the SF-36 are adequate and it is recommended for measuring health-related quality of life among Yoruba population.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Mbada et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schölzel-Dorenbos CJM, Krabbe PFM, Olde Rikkert MGM. Quality of Life in Dementia Patients and Their Proxies: A Narrative Review of the Concept and Measurement Scales. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. 2010; p. 3671–3689.
• [2]Maciejewski M. Generic Measures. Understanding Health Care Outcomes Research. Kane LR, editor. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen; 1993.
• [3]Patrick DL, Erickson P: Health Status and Health Policy. Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resources Allocation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 414–428.
• [4]Lohr KN. Applications of health status assessment measures in clinical practice. Overview of the third conference on advances in health status assessment. Med Care. 1992; 30(5 Suppl):MS1-14.
• [5]Sanjuas Benito C. Measuring quality of life: generic or specific questionnaires? Arch Bronconeumol. 2005; 41:107-9.
• [6]Klooster PM, Vonkemen HE, Taal E, Siemons L, Hendriks L, De Jong AJL et al.. Performance of the Dutch SF-36 version 2 as a measure of Health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Health and Quality of life outcome. 2013; 11:77. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Mcsweeny AJ, Creer TL. Health-related quality of life assessment in medical care. Dis Mon. 1995; 41(1):6-71.
• [8]Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, New York; 2008.
• [9]Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey Update. In: The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment. Maruish M, editor. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey; 2004: p.693-718.
• [10]Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(11):903-12.
• [11]Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE: How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2000.
• [12]Fukuhara S, Bito S, Green J, Hsiao A, Kurokawa A. Translation, Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 health survey for use in Japan. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(11):1037-44.
• [13]Asnani M, Lipps G, Reid M. Component structure of the SF-36 in Jamaicans with Sickle cell disease. West Indian Med J. 2007; 56(5):491-7.
• [14]Khader S, Mourani MM, Al-Akour N. Normative data and psychometric properties of short form 36 health survey (SF-36, Version 1.0) in the population of North Jordan. East Mediterr Health J. 2011; 17(5):368-74.
• [15]Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Med Care. 1992; 30:473-83.
• [16]Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, Semin S, Akvardar Y, Kivircik B et al.. Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 SF-36 in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health. 2006; 6:247. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2002; 9:233-55.
• [18]Sudano JJ, Perzynski A, Love TE, Lewis SA, Murray PM, Huber G et al.. Measuring Disparities: Bias in the SF-36v2 among Spanish-speaking Medical Patients. Med Care. 2011; 49(5):480-8.
• [19]Li L, Wang HM, Shen Y. Chinese SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation, validation, and normalisation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57:259-63.
• [20]Sararaks S, Azman AB, Low LL, Ugayah BR, Azlah AM, Hooi LN et al.. Validity and Reliability of the SF-36”: The Malaysian context. Med J Malaysia. 2005; 60:2.
• [21]Motamed N, Ayatollahi AR, Zare N, Sadeghi-Hassanabadi A. Validity and reliability of the Persian translated of the SF-36 version 2 questionnaire. East Mediterr Health J. 2005; 11(3):349-57.
• [22]Agu KA, Okojie O, Oqua D, King R, Isah M, Iyaji PG et al.. Health-Related quality of life and CD4 cells status of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in Nigeria. West African Journal of Pharmacy. 2012; 23(2):87-97.
• [23]Ewunife OI, Aguwa CN, Adibe MO, Barikpaoar E, Onwuka CJ. Health state utility of a population of Nigerian hypertensive patients. BMC Research Notes. 2011; 4:528. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Jaiyesimi AO, Sofela EA, Rufai AA. Health related quality of life and its determinants in Nigerian breast cancer patients. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2007; 36(3):259-65.
• [25]Ogunlana MO, Adedokun B, Dairo MD, Odunaya NA. Profile and predictor of health-related quality of life among hypertensive patient in South-western Nigeria. BMC Cardiovascular Disorder. 2009; 9:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Mbada CE, Ayanniyi O, Ogunlade SO, Orimolade EA, Oladiran AB, Ogundele AO. Influence of McKenzie protocol and 2 modes of endurance exercises on Health-Related Quality of Life of patients with Long term mechanical Low-Back Pain. Pan Afr Med J. 2014; 18 Suppl 1:5:17.
• [27]Balogun TA. An Endangered Nigerian Indigenous Language: The Case of Yorùbá Language. African Nebula. 2013; 6:70-82.
• [28]Williamson K, Blench R. Niger-Congo Languages. D, Nurse Ed. African Languages: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2000.
• [29]World Health Organization. Guidelines for conducting community surveys on injuries and violence. Edited by Sethi D, Habibula S, McGee K, Peden M, Bennet S, Hyder AA, Klevens J, Odero W, Suriyawongpaisal P. World Health Organization, Geneva. 2004. http://apps.who.int. Accessed 12 jun 2014.
• [30]Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M et al.. International Quality of Life Assessment Project. Qual Life Res. 1992; 1:349-51.
• [31]Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res. 1993; 2(6):451-9.
• [32]Gandek B, Ware J. Methods for validating and norming translations of health status questionnaires: The IQOLA Project approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(11):953-9.
• [33]Acquardo C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008; 11(3):509-21.
• [34]Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 manual and interpretation guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston; 1993.
• [35]Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PDA, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51:1055-68.
• [36]Lam CK, Gandek B, Ren XS, Chan MS. Tests of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(11):1139-47.
• [37]Butterworth P, Crosier T. The validity of the SF-36 in an Australian National Household Survey: demonstrating the applicability of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examination of health inequalities. BMC Public Health. 2004; 4:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Jenkinson C, Layte R, Lawrence K. Development and testing of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey summary scale scores in the United Kingdom. Med Care. 1997; 35:410-6.
• [39]Hopman W, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C et al.. Canadian Normative Data for the SF-36 Health Survey. CMAJ. 2000; 163(3):265-71.
• [40]Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B. The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(3):875-82.
• [41]Scott KM, Tobias MI, Sarfati D, Haslett SJ. SF-36 health survey reliability, validity and norms for New Zealand. Aust NZJ Public Health. 1999; 23(4):401-6.
• [42]Cruz LN, Fleck MP, Oliveira MR, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, Bagattini AM et al.. Health-related quality of life in Brazil: normative data for the SF-36 in a general population sample in the south of the country. Cien Saude Colet. 2013; 18(7):1911-21.
• [43]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hil, New York; 1994.
• [44]Sheikh KA, Yagoub U, Elsatouhy M, Al Sanosi R, Mohamud SA: Reliability and Validity of the Arabic Version of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in Population of Khat Chewers—Jazan Region-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Applied Research Quality Life. 2013; DOI. 10. 1007/s11482-013-9291-1 webcite