Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of a Gujarati version of a theory of planned behavior questionnaire that assesses walking treatment beliefs in people with intermittent claudication

IF 1.1 Q3 NURSING Journal of Vascular Nursing Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jvn.2024.05.004
Megha Nishith Gohil , Balaganapathy Muruganantham , Manish Raval , Lindsay Mary Bearne
{"title":"Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of a Gujarati version of a theory of planned behavior questionnaire that assesses walking treatment beliefs in people with intermittent claudication","authors":"Megha Nishith Gohil ,&nbsp;Balaganapathy Muruganantham ,&nbsp;Manish Raval ,&nbsp;Lindsay Mary Bearne","doi":"10.1016/j.jvn.2024.05.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Walking as a treatment is recommended for people with intermittent claudication (IC), but participation tends to be poor. Walking treatment beliefs, as defined by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) are associated with walking behavior, so assessing and designing interventions targeting walking treatment beliefs are crucial. To assess walking treatment beliefs in people with IC in Gujarat, a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire that assesses the four TPB constructs (attitude, subjective normative beliefs, perceived behavioral control beliefs, and intention to walk) is required.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To translate and cross-culturally assess the content validity and face validity of a Gujarati version of a TPB questionnaire that assesses walking treatment beliefs.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A forward-backward translation of the 12-item TPB questionnaire was applied using a standardized approach. The translated versions were compared with the original questionnaire, and ten experts, rated each item according to: clarity, semantic, appropriateness, and cultural relevance. Content Validity Index (CVI), item level content validity (I-CVI), Scale –content validity index (S-CVI/Ave), and universal agreement (UA) were computed to summarize the overall content validity of the questionnaire as well as a proportion of agreement with content experts. Face validity was assessed using a think-aloud approach with ten patients with IC. This cognitive interviewing approach (think-aloud approach) asked participants to describe their thoughts whilst completing the questionnaire. Responses were analyzed thematically.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was complete agreement between experts for 9/12 items (I-CVI=1.00), leading to an overall agreement (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.98. For face validation, at least 50% of the participants had no significant problems with any question in the questionnaire. Most problems participants encountered were straightforward, such as re-reading some questions or considering the questions carefully before answering.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The Gujarati TPB questionnaire had excellent content validity and was comprehensible and answerable by the majority of our participants with IC and, therefore, had good face validity; this will enable walking treatment beliefs to be assessed in people with IC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45419,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Nursing","volume":"42 3","pages":"Pages 182-190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062030324000438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Walking as a treatment is recommended for people with intermittent claudication (IC), but participation tends to be poor. Walking treatment beliefs, as defined by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) are associated with walking behavior, so assessing and designing interventions targeting walking treatment beliefs are crucial. To assess walking treatment beliefs in people with IC in Gujarat, a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire that assesses the four TPB constructs (attitude, subjective normative beliefs, perceived behavioral control beliefs, and intention to walk) is required.

Aim

To translate and cross-culturally assess the content validity and face validity of a Gujarati version of a TPB questionnaire that assesses walking treatment beliefs.

Materials and methods

A forward-backward translation of the 12-item TPB questionnaire was applied using a standardized approach. The translated versions were compared with the original questionnaire, and ten experts, rated each item according to: clarity, semantic, appropriateness, and cultural relevance. Content Validity Index (CVI), item level content validity (I-CVI), Scale –content validity index (S-CVI/Ave), and universal agreement (UA) were computed to summarize the overall content validity of the questionnaire as well as a proportion of agreement with content experts. Face validity was assessed using a think-aloud approach with ten patients with IC. This cognitive interviewing approach (think-aloud approach) asked participants to describe their thoughts whilst completing the questionnaire. Responses were analyzed thematically.

Results

There was complete agreement between experts for 9/12 items (I-CVI=1.00), leading to an overall agreement (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.98. For face validation, at least 50% of the participants had no significant problems with any question in the questionnaire. Most problems participants encountered were straightforward, such as re-reading some questions or considering the questions carefully before answering.

Conclusion

The Gujarati TPB questionnaire had excellent content validity and was comprehensible and answerable by the majority of our participants with IC and, therefore, had good face validity; this will enable walking treatment beliefs to be assessed in people with IC.

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
对古吉拉特语版本的计划行为理论问卷进行翻译、跨文化改编和验证,以评估间歇性跛行患者的步行治疗信念。
背景:建议间歇性跛行(IC)患者将步行作为一种治疗方法,但参与度往往很低。计划行为理论(TPB)所定义的步行治疗信念与步行行为相关,因此评估和设计针对步行治疗信念的干预措施至关重要。为了评估古吉拉特邦集成电路患者的步行治疗信念,需要翻译一份经过文化调整的问卷,以评估四个 TPB 构建(态度、主观规范信念、感知行为控制信念和步行意向)。目的:翻译并跨文化评估古吉拉特语版 TPB 问卷的内容效度和表面效度,以评估步行治疗信念:采用标准化方法对 12 项 TPB 问卷进行了正向和反向翻译。翻译版本与原始问卷进行了比较,十位专家根据清晰度、语义、适当性和文化相关性对每个项目进行了评分。计算了内容效度指数(CVI)、项目级内容效度(I-CVI)、量表-内容效度指数(S-CVI/Ave)和普遍同意度(UA),以总结问卷的整体内容效度以及与内容专家达成一致的比例。面效度是通过对 10 名 IC 患者进行 "思考-朗读 "的方法进行评估的。这种认知访谈法(思考-朗读法)要求参与者在填写问卷时描述自己的想法。结果:结果:9/12 个项目的专家意见完全一致(I-CVI=1.00),总体一致度(S-CVI/Ave)为 0.98。在表面验证方面,至少有 50%的参与者在问卷中的任何问题上都没有明显问题。参与者遇到的大多数问题都很直接,如重新阅读某些问题或在回答问题前仔细考虑:古吉拉特语 TPB 问卷具有很好的内容效度,大多数 IC 患者都能理解并回答问卷,因此具有很好的面效度;这将有助于对 IC 患者的步行治疗信念进行评估。
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Journal of Vascular Nursing provides clinical information regarding aortic and peripheral aneurysms, upper and lower extremity arterial disease, acute and chronic venous disease, and more. Original, peer-reviewed articles present descriptions, etiologies, diagnostic procedures, medical and surgical treatment and nursing implications of vascular system disorders.
期刊最新文献
Table of contents Six-month combined aerobic and resistance exercise program enhances 6-minute walk test and physical fitness in people with peripheral arterial disease: A pilot study Implementing primary care follow-up for high-risk vascular surgery patients Comparison of the effects of training in the standing and lying positions on the quality of life and clinical symptoms in women with mild varicose veins: A randomized controlled trial Does frailty affect barriers to physical activity in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease? A cross-sectional study
×
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