1 / 26

Translation and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Health Measures

Translation and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Health Measures. Context. Multinational companies & international drug trials Cross-cultural research within Canada International health studies General sense of globalization – but does this downplay differences? . Relevance of Culture.

boaz
Download Presentation

Translation and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Health Measures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Translation and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Health Measures

  2. Context • Multinational companies & international drug trials • Cross-cultural research within Canada • International health studies • General sense of globalization – but does this downplay differences?

  3. Relevance of Culture • Culture shapes the way we conceive of health and illness • Influences customary behaviours, relationships with others • Influences relative values of symptoms • Reactions to pain, etc. • Expectations & definitions of feeling good, etc. • ‘Questionnaire sophistication’ of the group

  4. Level of abstraction • Concepts can be: • Abstract and general • Happiness, Ability • Concrete and specific • Number of hospital beds per capita • More abstract concepts • Applicable to different cultures, but • More imprecise • Specific concepts • Less cross-culturally applicable • More context dependent

  5. Types of Cross-Cultural Equivalence • Is it operationalized in same way? (Same general measurement procedures) • Item equivalence: Items should mean the same thing to people in one culture as in another • Scalar equivalence (E.g., is the distance between “moderately severe” and “severe” the same in both cultures?)

  6. Requirements for cross-cultural equivalence • Conceptual/functional • Equivalence in construct operationalization • Item equivalence • Scalar equivalence • Hierarchical: must have first before second

  7. Conceptual/FunctionalEquivalence • Is there a universal situation? • Does construct mean the same thing in both cultures? • Can goal of behaviour be identified? • Are same antecedent-consequent relations demonstrable across cultures? • Does same situation result in same behaviour across cultures?

  8. Equivalence in operationalization • Is it operationalized in same way? • Same procedure • E.g. measuring disability with • Questions on self-care • Measuring visual impairment with • Snellen chart

  9. Item equivalence • Measured by same instrument • Items should mean the same thing to people in one culture as in another • E.g. on FAS test, items with identical meaning in French are not FAS, but T, N and P • “No ifs, ands, or buts”

  10. Scalar Equivalence • Measured on the same metric • Numerical value on scale has same degree of intensity or magnitude of the construct • E.g. is the distance between 6 (moderately severe) and 7 (severe) the same in both cultures?

  11. Developing cross-cultural measures • Sequential approach • Translate an instrument into another language • Simultaneous approach • Conceptualize & develop measure in each culture • Set of equivalent items that reflect the same construct in different cultures • Core instrument plus culture-specific additional components

  12. Strategies for ensuring cross-cultural equivalence • Direct translation and comparison • Better translation techniques • Multi-trait, multimethod • Item response theory methods • Differential item functioning

  13. Strategies: continued • Response pattern method • Factor analysis • Multidimensional scaling • Combined etic-emic approach • Multi-strategy approach

  14. Methods for assessing equivalence • Factor analysis • Empirical analysis of how items relate to one another • Shows how many concepts scale measures and which items measure that scale • Confirmatory: must have theory about how items go together • Simultaneous factor analysis in different populations • Factor structure should be the same • Test whether data are similar to be called equal • Same factor pattern-loadings • Same goodness of fit

  15. Differential item functioning • Related to IRT theory • Needed because tests can have matching factor structures and still be biased • DIF analyses • Compare reference and focal groups • In translation from English to French, English reference and French focal

  16. Differential Item Functioning • DIF = a different in item score between two groups who are equal in ability. • First step: match on ability (total score) • Internal test of item bias • 2nd step: for each score group, compares performance of reference and focal group on each item

  17. Two types of DIF • Uniform • Difference in difficulty between reference and focal group • Item may be more difficult for one group • Non-uniform • Difference in discrimination between reference and focal group

  18. When you find DIF or non-factorial equivalence • Study reasons why • Content experts • Review item wording, translation, cultural meaning.

  19. Translation • Simply translate instrument and administer it • Simple tests of difference: assumes scalar equivalence • Translation-back translation

  20. Issues to Consider • Goal: to adapt measure for a new country, or to make comparisons across countries? • Translation or adaptation? Back-translation gives identity rather than equivalence • In most countries the ‘official’ language differs from the vernacular. Which do we use? • We still know little about effect of linguistic variations within countries

  21. Issues - continued • Why was this instrument chosen? Are these features relevant in another culture? • At least some of the content of most scales will be culture-specific (e.g., some of NHP seen as blasphemous in Arabic countries) • Was the scale developed on a particular cultural group?

  22. Quality of Life • Quality of life is subjective & value-specific • Invented in the USA; ¿not universal? • Definition will at least vary across cultures (naïve enthusiasm for QoL) • Handicap reflects impairment + environment, so measures may perform differently in different environments

  23. Translation, or Domination? • “…with refinements and changes introduced here and there in order to convey the meaning of the English questions as accurately as possible…” (A. Leighton)

  24. Words & Concepts • An etic approach (phonetic) describes the physical properties of the word, without referring to its functional meaning: language • The emic approach takes account of the context, meaning and purpose of the word: concepts

  25. Translation Example • “Does poor health prevent you from seeing your friends?” • Meaning of “friend” differs in UK, US, and Australian English • Even more differences between Ami(e), Amigo and Freund

  26. Suggestions • Plan cross-cultural applications from the outset • Consider relevance of quality of life carefully: omit? • Avoid questionnaires! • Use ‘DIF’ analyses • Run within-country analyses • Develop measures within each country • Seek core set of universal items (WHO QoL) • Make sure the values are explicit

More Related