Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine

Siny Tsang, Colin F Royse, Abdullah Sulieman Terkawi, Siny Tsang, Colin F Royse, Abdullah Sulieman Terkawi

Abstract

The task of developing a new questionnaire or translating an existing questionnaire into a different language might be overwhelming. The greatest challenge perhaps is to come up with a questionnaire that is psychometrically sound, and is efficient and effective for use in research and clinical settings. This article provides guidelines for the development and translation of questionnaires for application in medical fields, with a special emphasis on perioperative and pain medicine. We provide a framework to guide researchers through the various stages of questionnaire development and translation. To ensure that the questionnaires are psychometrically sound, we present a number of statistical methods to assess the reliability and validity of the questionnaires.

Keywords: Anesthesia; development; questionnaires; translation; validation.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Questionnaire development and translation processes

References

    1. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ. 2004;328:1312–5.
    1. Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning; 2008.
    1. Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ, Fredrickson D, Bocchini JA, Jr, Jackson RH, Murphy PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics. 1994;93:460–8.
    1. Bell A. Designing and testing questionnaires for children. J Res Nurs. 2007;12:461–9.
    1. Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: Comparison of assessment scales. Okla Nurse. 1988;33:8.
    1. Stone E. Research Methods in Organizational Behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman; 1978.
    1. Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998;2:104–21.
    1. Harrison DA, McLaughlin ME. Cognitive processes in self-report responses: Tests of item context effects in work attitude measures. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:129–40.
    1. Price JL, Mueller CW. Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman; 1986.
    1. Harrison DA, McLaughlin ME. Exploring the Cognitive Processes Underlying Responses to Self-Report Instruments: Effects of Item Content on Work Attitude Measures. Academy of Management Annual Meetings. 1991:310–4.
    1. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 2000.
    1. Lindwall M, Barkoukis V, Grano C, Lucidi F, Raudsepp L, Liukkonen J, et al. Method effects: The problem with negatively versus positively keyed items. J Pers Assess. 2012;94:196–204.
    1. Stansbury JP, Ried LD, Velozo CA. Unidimensionality and bandwidth in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale. J Pers Assess. 2006;86:10–22.
    1. Tsang S, Salekin RT, Coffey CA, Cox J. A comparison of self-report measures of psychopathy among non-forensic samples using item response theory analyses. Psychol Assess. [In press]
    1. Leung WC. How to design a questionnaire. Stud BMJ. 2001;9
    1. Artino AR, Jr, La Rochelle JS, Dezee KJ, Gehlbach H. Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No 87. Med Teach. 2014;36:463–74.
    1. Schultz KS, Whitney DJ. Measurement Theory in Action: Case Studies and Exercises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
    1. Schmitt NW, Stults DM. Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The results of careless respondents? Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9:367–73.
    1. Thurstone LL. Multiple-Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1947.
    1. Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res. 1979;16:64–73.
    1. Perneger TV, Courvoisier DS, Hudelson PM, Gayet-Ageron A. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:147–51.
    1. Bowling A, Windsor J. The effects of question order and response-choice on self-rated health status in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:81–5.
    1. Lee S, Schwarz N. Question context and priming meaning of health: Effect on differences in self-rated health between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:179–85.
    1. Schwarz N. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol. 1999;54:93–105.
    1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–32.
    1. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M. Recommendations for the Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the DASH and Quick DASH Outcome Measures. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health; 2007.
    1. Hendricson WD, Russell IJ, Prihoda TJ, Jacobson JM, Rogan A, Bishop GD, et al. Development and initial validation of a dual-language English-Spanish format for the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1989;32:1153–9.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186–91.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.
    1. Nunnally J. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
    1. Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80:99–103.
    1. Wilkinson L the Task Force on Statistical Inference. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. Am Psychol. 1999;54:594–604.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.
    1. Dawson B, Trapp RG. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Norwalk, Conn: Lange Medical Books; 2001.
    1. Grootscholten C, Bajema IM, Florquin S, Steenbergen EJ, Peutz-Kootstra CJ, Goldschmeding R, et al. Inter-observer agreement of scoring of histopathological characteristics and classification of lupus nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:223–30.
    1. Berry KJ, Mielke PW. A generalization of Cohen's kappa agreement measure to interval measurement and multiple raters. Educ Psychol Meas. 1988;48:921–33.
    1. Murphy KR, Davidshofer CO. Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2001.
    1. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28:563–75.
    1. Barrett RS. Content validation form. Public Pers Manage. 1992;21:41–52.
    1. Barrett RS, editor. Fair Employment Strategies in Human Resource Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books/Greenwood; 1996. Content validation form; pp. 47–56.
    1. Alnahhal A, May S. Validation of the arabic version of the quebec back pain disability Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1645–50.
    1. Cronbach L, Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52:281–302.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
    1. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:176.
    1. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1889–905.
    1. Newman S, Wilkinson DJ, Royse CF. Assessment of early cognitive recovery after surgery using the Post-operative Quality of Recovery Scale. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58:185–91.
    1. Royse CF, Newman S, Williams Z, Wilkinson DJ. A human volunteer study to identify variability in performance in the cognitive domain of the postoperative quality of recovery scale. Anesthesiology. 2013;119:576–81.
    1. Royse CF, Williams Z, Purser S, Newman S. Recovery after nasal surgery vs. tonsillectomy: Discriminant validation of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58:345–51.
    1. Royse CF, Williams Z, Ye G, Wilkinson D, De Steiger R, Richardson M, et al. Knee surgery recovery: Post-operative Quality of Recovery Scale comparison of age and complexity of surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58:660–7.
    1. Gorusch RL. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
    1. Pedhazur RJ. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers; 1997.
    1. Comfrey AL, Lee HB. A First Course in Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992.
    1. Osborne JW, Costello AB. Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2004;9:8.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel