Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the Dutch and German versions of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in people with rheumatoid arthritis

Alison Hammond, Jorit Meesters, Karin Niedermann, Alan Tennant, Thea Vliet Vlieland, Sarah Tyson, Ulla Nordenskiöld, Alison Hammond, Jorit Meesters, Karin Niedermann, Alan Tennant, Thea Vliet Vlieland, Sarah Tyson, Ulla Nordenskiöld

Abstract

The Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) is a detailed patient-reported outcome measure of activity ability. The objective of this research was to assess the linguistic and cross-cultural validity and psychometric properties of the EDAQ in rheumatoid arthritis for Dutch and German speakers. The EDAQ was translated into Dutch and German using standard methods. A total of 415 participants (Dutch n = 252; German n = 163) completed two questionnaires about four weeks apart. The first included the EDAQ, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and 36-item Short-Form v2 (SF-36v2) and the second, the EDAQ only. We examined construct validity using Rasch analysis for the two components (Self-Care and Mobility) of the Dutch and German EDAQ. Language invariance was also tested from the English version. We examined internal consistency, concurrent and discriminant validity and test-retest reliability in the 14 EDAQ domains. The Self-Care and Mobility components satisfied Rasch model requirements for fit, unidimensionality and invariance by language. Internal consistency for all 14 domains was mostly good to excellent (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.80). Concurrent validity was mostly strong: HAQ rs = 0.65-0.87; SF36v2 rs = - 0.61 to - 0.87. Test-retest reliability was excellent [ICC (2,1) = 0.77-0.97]. The EDAQ has good reliability and validity in both languages. The Dutch and German versions of the EDAQ can be used as a measure of daily activity in practice and research in the Netherlands and German- speaking countries.

Keywords: Activities of daily living; Occupational therapy; Outcome assessment; Rasch analysis; Rehabilitation; Rheumatoid arthritis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no conflicting or competing interests.

References

    1. World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO, Geneva. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137–145. doi: 10.1002/art.1780230202.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.
    1. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D, Davis A, Hawker G, Katz JN, Makela M, Marx RG, Punnett L, Wright J. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) Am J Indust Med. 1996;29:602–608. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>;2-L.
    1. Pincus T, Swearingen C, Wolfe F. Toward a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ): assessment of advanced activities of daily living and psychological status in the patient-friendly health assessment questionnaire format. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:2220–2230. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199910)42:10<2220::AID-ANR26>;2-5.
    1. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–3139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.
    1. World Health Organization (2013) WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS2.0). World Health Organization, Geneva. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. Hammond A, Tyson S, Prior Y, Hawkins R, Tennant A, Nordenskiold U, Thyberg I, Sandqvists G, Cederlund R. Linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of an English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:143. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0143-y.
    1. Nordenskiold U, Grimby G, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Questionnaire to evaluate the effects of assistive devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1998;17:6–16. doi: 10.1007/BF01450952.
    1. Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U, Hawkins R, Prior Y. The reliability and validity of the english version of the evaluation of daily activity questionnaire for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2015;54:1605–1615. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev008.
    1. Hammond A, Prior Y, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U. The content validity and acceptability of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in musculoskeletal conditions. Br J Occ Ther. 2015;78:144–157. doi: 10.1177/0308022615571117.
    1. Hammond A, Prior Y, Horton M, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U. The Reliability and Validity of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in seven musculoskeletal conditions. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(17):2070–2080. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1323027.
    1. Androher ND, Tennant A. Supporting construct validity of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire using Linear Logistic Test Models. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:1627–1639. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02146-4.
    1. Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U. Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire): online version available at: . Accessed 30 June 2020
    1. Petersen M, Groenvold M, Bjorner J, Aaronson N, Conroy T, Cull A, Fayers P, Hjermstad M, Sprangers M, Sullivan M. Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:373–385. doi: 10.1023/a:1023488915557.
    1. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard J-L, Slade A, Lawton G, Simone A, Carter J, Lundgren-Nilsson Ãs, Tripolski M, Ring H, Biering-Sorenson F, Marincek C, Burger H, Phillips S. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care. 2004;42:I-37. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103529.63132.77.
    1. Acquadro C, Conway K, Giroudet C, Mear I. Linguistic validation manual for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments. Lyon: MAPI Research Institute; 2004.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz B. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186–3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
    1. Willis GB, Miller K. Cross cultural cognitive interviewing: seeking comparability and enhancing understanding. Field Methods. 2011;23:331–341. doi: 10.1177/1525822X11416092.
    1. Stucki G, Cieza A, Geyh S, Battistella L, Lloyd J, Symmons D, Kostansjeck N, Schouten J. ICF core sets for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rehabil Med Suppl. 2004;44:87–93. doi: 10.1080/16501960410015470.
    1. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostansjeck N, Ustun B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learnt. J Rehabil Med. 2004;37:212–218. doi: 10.1080/16501970510040263.
    1. Boers M, Jacobs JW, van Vliet Vlieland TP, van Riel PL. Consensus Dutch Health Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:132. doi: 10.1136/ard.2006.059451.
    1. Bruehlmann P, Stucki G, Michel B. Evaluation of a German version of the physical dimensions of the Health Assessment Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:1245–1249.
    1. Tennant A, Hillman M, Fear J, et al. Are we making the most of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire? Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35:574–578. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/35.6.574.
    1. Quality Metric Incorporated Solutions (2010) QualityMetric Health OutcomesTM Scoring Software 4.5. QualityMetric, Incorporated, Lincoln, Rhode Island. Now Optum Insight Life Sciences Inc. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. De Jong Z, van der Heijde D, McKenna SP, Whalley D. The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:878–883. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.8.878.
    1. Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Stat Med. 2000;19:1651–1683. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000615/30)19:11/12<1651::aid-sim453>;2-h.
    1. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
    1. Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research). [Expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright]. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
    1. Fischer GH. Rasch models: foundations, recent developments and applications. New York: Springer; 1995.
    1. Gustafsson JE. Testing and obtaining fit of data to the Rasch model. Br J Math Stat Psy. 1980;33:205–233. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1980.tb00609.x.
    1. Smith EV. Detecting and evaluation the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002;3:205–231.
    1. Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U (2018) Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire: User Manual v3. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. Wainer H, Kiely G. Item clusters and computer adaptive testing: a case for testlets. J Educ Measurement. 1987;24:185–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1987.tb00274.x.
    1. Andrich D, Sheridan BS, Luo G (2015) RUMM2030: an MS Windows computer program for the analysis of data according to Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. RUMM Laboratory, Perth, Western Australia. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. IBM Corp . IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2018.
    1. MedCalc for Windows . Version 18.5. Ostend: MedCalc Software; 2018.
    1. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
    1. Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing; 1996.
    1. Cichetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardised assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27–30. doi: 10.2310/6640.2004.15377.
    1. Donoghue D. PROP Group and Stokes E How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:343–346. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0337.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry: patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB (2019) COSMIN study design checklist for patient reported outcome measurement instruments. . Accessed 16 May 2020
    1. Thyberg I, Hass UA, Nordenskiold U, Gerdie B, Skogh T. Activity limitation in rheumatoid arthritis correlates with reduced grip force regardless of sex: the Swedish TIRA project. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;56:886–896. doi: 10.1002/art.21595.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj