Cross-cultural adaptation of instruments assessing breastfeeding determinants: a multi-step approach

International Breastfeeding Journal

Jeffrey D Fisher⁵  Robert K Gable³  Gracia Nokhaya Makiwane²  Regina M Cusson¹  Jacqueline M McGrath⁶  Lisa M Butler⁴  Emily L Tuthill⁵ 

[1] University of Connecticut School of Nursing, 231 Glenbrook Rd, Storrs, CT 06269, USA;University of KwaZulu-Natal, King Edward Avenue, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa;College of Arts & Sciences, Johnson & Wales University, 8 Abbott Park Place, Providence, RI 02903, USA;Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA;Center for Health Intervention and Prevention, University of Connecticut, 2006 Hillside Rd, Unit 1248, Storrs, CT 06269, USA;Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Institute for Nursing Research and Evidence-Based Practice, 282 Washington St., Hartford, CT 06106, USA

关键词: Breastfeeding scales;    Content validity;    Scale development;    Translation;    Cross-cultural adaptation;    Breastfeeding;   

Others  :  1135840
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4358-9-16

 received in 2014-01-21, accepted in 2014-09-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cross-cultural adaptation is a necessary process to effectively use existing instruments in other cultural and language settings. The process of cross-culturally adapting, including translation, of existing instruments is considered a critical set to establishing a meaningful instrument for use in another setting. Using a multi-step approach is considered best practice in achieving cultural and semantic equivalence of the adapted version. We aimed to ensure the content validity of our instruments in the cultural context of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Methods

The Iowa Infant Feeding Attitudes Scale, Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form and additional items comprise our consolidated instrument, which was cross-culturally adapted utilizing a multi-step approach during August 2012. Cross-cultural adaptation was achieved through steps to maintain content validity and attain semantic equivalence in the target version. Specifically, Lynn’s recommendation to apply an item-level content validity index score was followed. The revised instrument was translated and back-translated. To ensure semantic equivalence, Brislin’s back-translation approach was utilized followed by the committee review to address any discrepancies that emerged from translation.

Results

Our consolidated instrument was adapted to be culturally relevant and translated to yield more reliable and valid results for use in our larger research study to measure infant feeding determinants effectively in our target cultural context.

Conclusions

Undertaking rigorous steps to effectively ensure cross-cultural adaptation increases our confidence that the conclusions we make based on our self-report instrument(s) will be stronger. In this way, our aim to achieve strong cross-cultural adaptation of our consolidated instruments was achieved while also providing a clear framework for other researchers choosing to utilize existing instruments for work in other cultural, geographic and population settings.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tuthill et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Epstein J, Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Beaton DE, Guillemin F: Cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. J Clin Epidemiol 2013. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.013.
• [2]Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000, 24:3186-91.
• [3]Lauth B, Magnússon P, Ferrari P, Pétursson H: An Icelandic version of the Kiddie-SADS-PL: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and inter-rater reliability. Nord J Psychiatry 2008, 62:379-385.
• [4]Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK: Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs 2004, 48(2):175-186.
• [5]Fisher JD, Fisher WA: Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychol Bull 1992, 111(3):455-474.
• [6]Brislin RW: The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field methods in cross-cultural research. Edited by Lonner WJ, Berry JW. Hong Kong: Sage Publications; 1986:137-164.
• [7]Schilling LS, Dixon JK, Knafl KA, Grey M, Ives B, Lynn MR: Determining content validity of a self-report instrument for adolescents using a heterogeneous expert panel. Nurs Res 2007, 56(5):361-366.
• [8]Ho Y-J, McGrath JM: A Chinese version of Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale: Reliability and validity assessment. Int J Nurs Stud 2011, 48(4):475-478.
• [9]UNAIDS: UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic. http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2013/gr2013/UNAIDS_Global_Report_2013_en.pdf webcite
• [10]Engebretsen IM, Shanmugam R, Sommerfelt AE, Tumwine JK, Tylleskär T: Infant feeding modalities addressed in two different ways in Eastern Uganda. Int Breastfeed J 2010, 5:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Goga AE, Doherty T, Jackson DJ, Sanders D, Colvin M, Chopra M, Kuhn L: Infant feeding practices at routine PMTCT sites, South Africa: results of a prospective observational study amongst HIV exposed and unexposed infants-birth to 9 months. Int Breastfeed J 2012, 7:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Gottlieb D, Shetty AK, Mapfungautsi RM, Bassett MT, Maldonado Y, Katzenstein DA: Infant feeding practices of HIV-infected and uninfected women in Zimbabwe. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2011, 18(1):45-53.
• [13]Mullin V, Cella D, Chang CH, Eremenco S, Mertz M, Lent L: Development of three African language translations of the FACT-G. Qual Life Res 2000, 9(2):139-149.
• [14]De La Mora A, Russell DW, Dungy CI, Losch M, Dusdieker L: The Iowa infant feeding attitude scale: analysis of reliability and validity. J Appl Soc Psychol 1999, 29(11):2362-2380.
• [15]Sittlington J, Stewart-Knox B, Wright M, Bradbury I, Scott JA: Infant-feeding attitudes of expectant mothers in Northern Ireland. Health Educ Res 2007, 22(4):561-570.
• [16]Dennis CL, Faux S: Development and psychometric testing of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale. Res Nurs Health 1999, 22(5):399-409.
• [17]Dai X, Dennis C-L: Translation and validation of the breastfeeding self-efficacy scale into Chinese. J Midwifery Womens Health 2003, 48(5):350-356.
• [18]McCoach DB, Gable RK, Madura JP: Instrument development in the affective domain. New York: Springer; 2013.
• [19]Lynn MR: Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986, 35(6):382-386.
• [20]Polit DF, Beck CT: The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006, 29(5):489-497.
• [21]Beck CT, Gable RK: Ensuring content validity: an illustration of the process. J Nurs Meas 2001, 9(2):201-215.
• [22]Popham WJ: Criterion-reference measurement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1978.
• [23]Tuthill E, McGrath J, Young S: Commonalities and differences in infant feeding attitudes and practices in the context of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: A metasynthesis. AIDS Care 2014, 26(2):214-225.
• [24]Polit D, Beck C: Nursing Research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2012.
• [25]Beck CT, Bernal H, Froman RD: Methods to document semantic equivalence of a translated scale. Res Nurs Health 2003, 26(Suppl1):64-73.
• [26]Kalichman SC, Simbayi LC, Jooste S, Toefy Y, Cain D, Cherry C, Kagee A: Development of a brief scale to measure AIDS-related stigma in South Africa. AIDS Behav 2005, 9(2):135-143.
• [27]World Health Organization: Exclusive breastfeeding for six months best for babies everywhere. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2011/breastfeeding_20110115/en/ webcite