1 / 23

Translation and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Health Measures

Translation and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Health Measures. Context: why are we interested?. Multinational drug trials need to ensure products are tested in standard way in different countries. Cross-cultural research within countries International health studies (WHO, etc.)

shina
Télécharger la présentation

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: why are we interested? • Multinational drug trials need to ensure products are tested in standard way in different countries. • Cross-cultural research within countries • International health studies (WHO, etc.) • Evidence-based medicine: how confident can I be that results of a clinical trial overseas would apply here?

  3. Translation • Simply translate an instrument and administer it • Simple tests of difference: assumes scalar equivalence • Almost certainly inadequate • Translation + back translation

  4. Issues to Consider • Do you wish to adapt the measure for a new country, or make comparisons across countries? • Should it be a strict translation or an adaptation? • Back-translation gives linguistic identity rather than equivalence • Example of memory item in a dementia screen “In what year did the first world war begin?” • In most countries the ‘official’ language differs from the vernacular. Which do we use? • We often ignore linguistic variations within countries

  5. Translation, or Domination? Bias in cultural assumptions illustrated by a statement (circa 1955) by Alexander Leighton: “…with refinements and changes introduced here and there in order to convey the meaning of the English questions as accurately as possible…”

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

  7. Words & cultural concepts • An etic approach to language (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 a word: concepts

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

  9. Relevance of Culture • Culture shapes the way we conceive of health and illness: it influences the attention paid to symptoms, reactions to pain, etc. • Expectations & definitions of feeling good, etc. • It influences customary behaviours, relationships with others, including people with clip boards & questionnaires: the ‘questionnaire sophistication’ of the group. • It affects the way we interpret the language used in our questionnaires.

  10. Level of abstraction • Concepts can be: • Abstract but general • E.g., Happiness, Ability • These terms probably apply in different cultures, but are imprecise and subjective: their meaning may differ. • However, being subjective may be sufficient in itself: perhaps a person’s subjective answer is inherently valid. (Discussion point: Maybe it doesn’t matter if happiness means slightly different things in different cultures?) • Concrete and specific • Number of hospital beds per capita • You can compare these across cultures, but • They are very context-dependent so less cross-culturally comparable.

  11. Establishing Cross-Cultural Equivalence • Are you using the same general measurement procedures? Or, at least culturally equivalent approaches? (This could mean using different words) • Item equivalence: items should mean the same thing to people in one culture as in another • Scale equivalence (e.g., is the distance between “moderately severe” and “severe” the same in both cultures? Will respondents feel comfortable with responses like “Disagree strongly”?)

  12. Conceptual or Functional Equivalence • Is the theme being measured really a universal experience? • Does this construct mean the same thing in both cultures? (How do we know this?) • Does it matter that a theme such as quality of life has a different range in 2 cultures? Should it be measured relative to local expectations, or in an absolute way? • Do the same cause-effect relations exist in each culture? • Does a similar situation lead to similar behaviours across cultures? (E.g., sick enough to go to a doctor)

  13. Item equivalence • Items should mean the same thing to people in one culture as in another • And be similarly difficult • E.g. on FAS test, items with identical meaning in French are not FAS, but T, N and P • Translating items such as “No ifs, ands, or buts” (in the 3MS cognitive screen)

  14. Scalar Equivalence • Measured on the same metric • Numerical values may appear culturally equivalent, but using numbers can mask differences in how they are introduced. • E.g. is the upper end of the scale defined in the same way in the instructions in both cultures?

  15. 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

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

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

  18. 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

  19. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) • Related to IRT theory • DIF = a difference in an item score between two groups who are equal in ability (e.g. as indicated by equal overall scores) • Needed because tests can have matching factor structures and still be biased.

  20. DIF analyses • Involves comparison of 2 or more groups (e.g. different languages) • Step1: match people on ability (total score) • 2nd step: for each score group, compares performance of reference and focal group on each item • In translation from English to French, English is reference, French focal

  21. Two types of DIF • Uniform • Difference in item difficulty between reference and focal group • Item may be more difficult for one group (perhaps translation problem?) • Non-uniform • Difference in discrimination between reference and focal group

  22. Correcting DIF or non-factorial equivalence • Study reasons why • Content experts • Review item wording, translation, cultural meaning.

  23. Translation & cultural equivalence 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 • Search for a core set of universal items (WHO QoL) • Make sure the values are explicit

More Related