Bridging language barriers in developing valid health policy research tools: insights from the translation and validation process of the SHEMESH questionnaire.

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Israel Journal of Health Policy Research Pub Date : 2023-11-26 DOI:10.1186/s13584-023-00583-8
Ligat Shalev, Christian D Helfrich, Moriah Ellen, Keren Avirame, Renana Eitan, Adam J Rose
{"title":"Bridging language barriers in developing valid health policy research tools: insights from the translation and validation process of the SHEMESH questionnaire.","authors":"Ligat Shalev, Christian D Helfrich, Moriah Ellen, Keren Avirame, Renana Eitan, Adam J Rose","doi":"10.1186/s13584-023-00583-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of research tools developed and validated in one cultural and linguistic context to another often faces challenges. One major challenge is poor performance of the tool in the new context. This potentially impact the legitimacy of health policy research conducted with informal adaptations of existing tools which have not been subjected to formal validation. Best practices exist to guide researchers in adapting and validating research tools effectively. We present here, as an extended example, our validation of the SHEMESH questionnaire ('Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment'; In Hebrew: 'SHE'elon Muchanut Ergunit le'SHinuy'), a Hebrew-language version of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA). SHEMESH is tailored to support implementation science projects, whose aim is to promote a more rapid and complete adoption of evidence-based health policies and practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The SHEMESH included originally eleven questions from the Evidence (item 1-4) and Context (items 5-11) domains. We validated SHEMESH through the following steps: 1. Professional translation to Hebrew and discussion of the translation by multidisciplinary committee; 2. Back-translation into English by a different translator to detect discrepancies; 3. Eleven cognitive interviews with psychiatric emergency department physicians and nurses; and 4. Pilot testing and psychometric analyses, including Cronbach's alpha for subscales and factor analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following translation and cognitive interviews, SHEMESH was administered to 222 psychiatrists and nurses. Pearson correlation showed significant and strong correlations of items 1-4 to the Evidence construct and items 6-11 to the Context construct. Item 5 did not correlate with the other items, and therefore was removed from the other psychometric procedures and eventually from the SHEMESH. Factor analysis with the remaining 10 items yielded two factors, which together explained a total of 69.7% of variance. Cronbach's Alpha scores for the two subscales were high (Evidence, 0.887, and Context, 0.852).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This multi-step validation process of the SHEMESH questionnaire may serve as a comprehensive guideline for others who are willing to adapt research tools that were developed in other languages. Practically, SHEMESH has been validated for use in implementation science research projects in Israel.</p>","PeriodicalId":46694,"journal":{"name":"Israel Journal of Health Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10680279/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israel Journal of Health Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-023-00583-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The use of research tools developed and validated in one cultural and linguistic context to another often faces challenges. One major challenge is poor performance of the tool in the new context. This potentially impact the legitimacy of health policy research conducted with informal adaptations of existing tools which have not been subjected to formal validation. Best practices exist to guide researchers in adapting and validating research tools effectively. We present here, as an extended example, our validation of the SHEMESH questionnaire ('Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment'; In Hebrew: 'SHE'elon Muchanut Ergunit le'SHinuy'), a Hebrew-language version of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA). SHEMESH is tailored to support implementation science projects, whose aim is to promote a more rapid and complete adoption of evidence-based health policies and practices.

Methods: The SHEMESH included originally eleven questions from the Evidence (item 1-4) and Context (items 5-11) domains. We validated SHEMESH through the following steps: 1. Professional translation to Hebrew and discussion of the translation by multidisciplinary committee; 2. Back-translation into English by a different translator to detect discrepancies; 3. Eleven cognitive interviews with psychiatric emergency department physicians and nurses; and 4. Pilot testing and psychometric analyses, including Cronbach's alpha for subscales and factor analyses.

Results: Following translation and cognitive interviews, SHEMESH was administered to 222 psychiatrists and nurses. Pearson correlation showed significant and strong correlations of items 1-4 to the Evidence construct and items 6-11 to the Context construct. Item 5 did not correlate with the other items, and therefore was removed from the other psychometric procedures and eventually from the SHEMESH. Factor analysis with the remaining 10 items yielded two factors, which together explained a total of 69.7% of variance. Cronbach's Alpha scores for the two subscales were high (Evidence, 0.887, and Context, 0.852).

Conclusions: This multi-step validation process of the SHEMESH questionnaire may serve as a comprehensive guideline for others who are willing to adapt research tools that were developed in other languages. Practically, SHEMESH has been validated for use in implementation science research projects in Israel.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消除开发有效卫生政策研究工具中的语言障碍:来自SHEMESH问卷翻译和验证过程的见解。
背景:在一种文化和语言背景下开发和验证的研究工具在另一种文化和语言背景下的使用经常面临挑战。一个主要的挑战是该工具在新环境中的性能较差。这可能会影响对未经正式验证的现有工具进行非正式调整的卫生政策研究的合法性。存在最佳实践来指导研究人员有效地适应和验证研究工具。作为一个扩展的例子,我们在这里展示了我们对SHEMESH问卷(“组织变革准备评估”;希伯来语:'SHE'elon Muchanut Ergunit le' shiny '),是组织变革准备评估(ORCA)的希伯来语版本。SHEMESH是为支持实施科学项目而量身定制的,其目的是促进更迅速、更全面地采用循证卫生政策和做法。方法:SHEMESH最初包括来自证据(项目1-4)和上下文(项目5-11)领域的11个问题。我们通过以下步骤验证SHEMESH:希伯来语专业翻译及多学科委员会讨论;2. 由不同的译者反译成英文,以发现差异;3.。对精神科急诊科医生和护士进行11次认知访谈;和4。先导测试和心理测量分析,包括Cronbach's alpha量表和因子分析。结果:对222名精神科医生和护士进行了翻译和认知访谈。Pearson相关显示,第1-4项与证据结构、第6-11项与情境结构显著且强相关。项目5与其他项目没有相关性,因此从其他心理测量程序中删除,最终从SHEMESH中删除。对剩下的10个项目进行因子分析得到两个因子,这两个因子共同解释了69.7%的方差。两个分量表的Cronbach's Alpha得分较高(证据0.887,背景0.852)。结论:SHEMESH问卷的多步骤验证过程可以作为其他愿意采用其他语言开发的研究工具的人的综合指南。实际上,SHEMESH已被证实可用于以色列的实施科学研究项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.40%
发文量
38
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reproductive healthcare utilization for women in the sex trade: a qualitative study. The attitudes and knowledge of family physicians regarding malnutrition in the elderly: a call for action. The child dental care reform in Israel - service uptake from 2011 to 2022. Attracting medical school graduates to residency programs in remotely located hospitals: the challenge lies beyond financial incentives. IQOS point-of-sale marketing: a comparison between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods in Israel.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1