Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023
Factorial validity and comparability of the six translations of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire translations: results from the CENTER-TBI study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zeldovich Marina, Bockhop Fabian, Covic Amra, Mueller Isabelle, Polinder Suzanne, Mikolic Ana, van der Vlegel Marjolein, von Steinbuechel Nicole, CENTER-TBI participants and investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Comparison of patient-reported outcomes in multilingual studies requires evidence of the equivalence of translated versions of the questionnaires. The present study examines the factorial validity and comparability of six language versions of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) administered to individuals following traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) study.
METHODS: Six competing RPQ models were estimated using data from Dutch (n = 597), English (n = 223), Finnish (n = 213), Italian (n = 268), Norwegian (n = 263), and Spanish (n = 254) language samples recruited six months after injury. To determine whether the same latent construct was measured by the best-fitting model across languages and TBI severity groups (mild/moderate vs. severe), measurement invariance (MI) was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis framework.
RESULTS: The results did not indicate a violation of the MI assumption. The six RPQ translations were largely comparable across languages and were able to capture the same construct across TBI severity groups. The three-factor solution comprising emotional, cognitive, and somatic factors provided the best fit with the following indices for the total sample: χ2 (101) = 647.04, [Formula: see text]= 6.41, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.055, CI90%[0.051, 0.059], SRMR = 0.051.
CONCLUSION: The RPQ can be used in international research and clinical settings, allowing direct comparisons of scores across languages analyzed within the full spectrum of TBI severity. To strengthen the aggregated applicability across languages, further analyses of the utility of the response scale and comparisons between different translations of the RPQ at the item level are recommended.
METHODS: Six competing RPQ models were estimated using data from Dutch (n = 597), English (n = 223), Finnish (n = 213), Italian (n = 268), Norwegian (n = 263), and Spanish (n = 254) language samples recruited six months after injury. To determine whether the same latent construct was measured by the best-fitting model across languages and TBI severity groups (mild/moderate vs. severe), measurement invariance (MI) was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis framework.
RESULTS: The results did not indicate a violation of the MI assumption. The six RPQ translations were largely comparable across languages and were able to capture the same construct across TBI severity groups. The three-factor solution comprising emotional, cognitive, and somatic factors provided the best fit with the following indices for the total sample: χ2 (101) = 647.04, [Formula: see text]= 6.41, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.055, CI90%[0.051, 0.059], SRMR = 0.051.
CONCLUSION: The RPQ can be used in international research and clinical settings, allowing direct comparisons of scores across languages analyzed within the full spectrum of TBI severity. To strengthen the aggregated applicability across languages, further analyses of the utility of the response scale and comparisons between different translations of the RPQ at the item level are recommended.