Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological criteria for the translation process and cross-cultural validation [9]

From: Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review

Item Methodological Criteria
1 Was the percentage of missing items given?
2 Was there a description of how missing items were handled?
3 Was the sample size included in the analysis adequate?
4 Were both the original language in which the HR-PRO instrument was developed,
  and the language in which the HR-PRO instrument was translated described?
5 Was the expertise of the people involved in the translation process adequately described?
  e.g. expertise in the disease(s) involved, in the construct to be measured, or in both languages
6 Did the translators work independently from each other?
7 Were items translated forward and backward?
8 Was there an adequate description of how differences between the original and
  translated versions were resolved?
9 Was the translation reviewed by a committee (e.g. original developers)?
10 Was the HR-PRO instrument pre-tested (e.g. cognitive interviews) to check interpretation,
  cultural relevance of the translation, and ease of comprehension?
11 Was the sample used in the pre-test adequately described?
12 Were the samples similar for all characteristics except language and/or cultural background?
13 Were there any important flaws in the design or methods of the study?
14 for CTT: Was confirmatory factor analysis performed?
15 for IRT: Was differential item function (DIF) between language groups assessed?
  1. CTT = Classical Test Theory, IRT = Item Response Theory