nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.08.2015

Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review

verfasst von: Marco Monticone, Claudia Nava, Vittorio Leggero, Barbara Rocca, Stefano Salvaderi, Simona Ferrante, Emilia Ambrosini

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

The Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22) has been translated into various languages and tested in patients with scoliosis. However, the translations and their psychometric properties have never been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and to provide the current level of evidence of all the available translations of the SRS-22 using the “COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments” (COSMIN).

Methods

A systematic review was performed. The PubMed, Medline, EMbase, and CINAHL databases were searched for articles concerning the translations of the SRS-22 and/or evaluating any of their measurement properties. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and the psychometric estimates of the selected studies by using the 4-point rating scale COSMIN checklist and a validated quality assessment criteria, respectively. The level of evidence of each psychometric property per language was determined combining COSMIN outcomes and psychometric results.

Results

The search strategy led to 24 articles evaluating the SRS-22 in 17 different languages. The methodological quality of the properties was mostly poor to fair, and there was a lack of information regarding them. The overall assessment was positive in 42.5 % of cases. The level of evidence resulted in a limited positive evidence in 11 languages.

Conclusions

The Chinese (traditional), Dutch, Italian, Norwegian, and Spanish translations are advisable; the Greek, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Thai, and Turkish translations showed encouraging results but should be used with caution; the Brazilian, Chinese (simplified), Polish, and Swedish translations showed contradictory or scarce results, and no suggestions can be formulated; the French Canadian and German translations did not provide methodologically sound information. Further attention should be given to cross-cultural and structural validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness.

Vorheriger Artikel Psychometric properties of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in multiple sclerosis

Nächster Artikel Conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Asher, M. A., Lai, S. M., Burton, D., & Manna, B. (2003). The reliability and concurrent validity of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 28(1), 63–69.PubMedCrossRef

Asher, M. A., Lai, S. M., Burton, D., & Manna, B. (2003). Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire: Responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment: Preliminary results. Spine, 28(1), 70–73.PubMedCrossRef

Asher, M. A., Lai, S. M., & Burton, D. C. (2000). Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine, 25(18), 2381–2386.PubMedCrossRef

Asher, M. A., Lai, S. M., Burton, D., & Manna, B. (2003). Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire: Relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine, 28(1), 74–78.PubMedCrossRef

Asher, M. A., Lai, S. M., Glattes, C., Burton, D. C., Alanay, A., & Bago, J. (2006). Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine, 31(5), 593–597.PubMedCrossRef

Lai, S. M., Asher, M. A., & Burton, D. (2006). Estimating SRS-22 quality of life measures with SF-36. Application in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 31(4), 473–478.PubMedCrossRef

de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. J. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

11.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef

13.

van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., Bouter, L., & Editorial Board CBRG. (2003). Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine, 28(12), 1290–1299.PubMed

14.

Furlan, A. D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., van Tulder, M., & Editorial Board CBRG. (2009). 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine, 34(18), 1929–1941.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Rosanova, G. C., Gabriel, B. S., Camarini, P. M., Gianini, P. E., Coehlo, D. M., & Oliveira, A. S. (2010). Concurrent validity of the Brazilian version of SRS-22r with Br-SF-36. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, 14(2), 121–126.PubMed

16.

Camarini, P. M., Rosanova, G. C., Gabriel, B. S., Gianini, P. E., & Oliveira, A. S. (2013). The Brazilian version of the SRS-22r questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 17(5), 494–505.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Zhao, L., Zhang, Y., Sun, X., Du, Q., & Shang, L. (2007). The Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire adapted for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients in China: Reliability and validity analysis. Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics, 1(6), 351–355.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Cheung, K., Senkoylu, A., Alanay, A., Genc, Y., Lau, S., & Luk, K. D. (2007). Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Questionnaire. Spine, 32(10), 1141–1145.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Li, M., Wang, C. F., Gu, S. X., He, S. S., Zhu, X. D., Zhao, Y. C., & Zhang, J. T. (2009). Adapted simplified Chinese (mainland) version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire. Spine, 34(12), 1321–1324.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Qiu, G., Qiu, Y., Zhu, Z., Liu, Z., Song, Y., Hai, Y., et al. (2011). Re-evaluation of reliability and validity of simplified Chinese version of SRS-22 patient questionnaire: A multicenter study of 333 cases. Spine, 36(8), E545–E550.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Schlösser, T. P., Stadhouder, A., Schimmel, J. J., Lehr, A. M., van der Heijden, G. J., & Castelein, R. M. (2013). Reliability and validity of the adapted Dutch version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society 22-item Questionnaire. The Spine Journal,. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.046.

22.

Beausejour, M., Joncas, J., Goulet, L., Roy-Beaudry, M., Parent, S., Grimard, G., et al. (2009). Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine, 34(6), 623–628.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lonjon, G., Ilharreborde, B., Odent, T., Moreau, S., Glorion, C., & Mazda, K. (2014). Reliability and validity of the French-Canadian version of the Scoliosis Research Society 22 Questionnaire in France. Spine, 39(1), E26–E34.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Niemeyer, T., Schubert, C., Halm, H. F., Herberts, T., Leichtle, C., & Gesicki, M. (2009). Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire. Spine, 34(8), 818–821.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Antonarakos, P. D., Katrinitsa, L., Angelis, L., Paganas, A., Koen, E. M., Christodoulou, E. A., & Christodoulou, A. G. (2009). Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Questionnaire. Scoliosis, 4, 14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Potoupnis, M., Papavasiliou, K., Kenanidis, E., Pellios, S., Kapetanou, A., Sayegh, F., & Kapetanos, G. (2012). Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Greek version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r Questionnaire. A cross-sectional study performed on conservatively treated patients. Hippokratia, 16(3), 225–229.PubMedCentralPubMed

27.

Monticone, M., Baiardi, P., Calabrò, D., Calabrò, F., & Foti, C. (2010). Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: Cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine, 35(24), E1412–E1417.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Hashimoto, H., Sase, T., Arai, Y., Maruyama, T., Isobe, K., & Shouno, Y. (2007). Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine, 32(4), E141–E146.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Lee, J. S., Lee, D. H., Suh, K. T., Kim, J. I., Lim, J. M., & Goh, T. S. (2011). Validation of the Korean version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire. European Spine Journal, 20(10), 1751–1756.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

30.

Adobor, R. D., Rimeslåtten, S., Keller, A., & Brox, J. I. (2010). Repeatability, reliability, and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire and EuroQol in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 35(2), 206–209.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Mousavi, S. J., Mobini, B., Mehdian, H., Akbarnia, B., Bouzari, B., Askary-Ashtiani, A., et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r Questionnaire. Spine, 35(7), 784–789.PubMed

32.

Glowacki, M., Misterska, E., Laurentowska, M., & Mankowski, P. (2009). Polish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire. Spine, 34(10), 1060–1065.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Bago, J., Climent, J. M., Ey, A., Perez-Grueso, F. J., & Izquierdo, E. (2004). The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: Transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine, 29(15), 1676–1680.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Climent, J. M., Bago, J., Ey, A., Perez-Grueso, F. J., & Izquierdo, E. (2005). Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire. Spine, 30(6), 705–709.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Danielsson, A. J., & Romberg, K. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Swedish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22r) Patient Questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 38(21), 1875–1884.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Leelapattana, P., Keorochana, G., Johnson, J., Wajanavisit, W., & Laohacharoensombat, W. (2011). Reliability and validity of an adapted Thai version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire. Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics, 5(1), 35–40.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

37.

Sathira-Angkura, V., Pithankuakul, K., Sakulpipatana, S., Piyaskulkaew, C., & Kunakornsawat, S. (2012). Validity and reliability of an adapted Thai Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 37(9), 783–787.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Alanay, A., Cil, A., Berk, H., Acaroglu, R. E., Yazici, M., Akcali, O., et al. (2005). Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Questionnaire. Spine, 30(21), 2464–2468.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.CrossRef

40.

De Vet, H. C. W., Ader, H. J., Terwee, C. B., & Pouwer, F. (2005). Are factor analytical techniques appropriately used in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analyses of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1203–1218.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Fayers, P. M., Curran, D., & Machin, D. (1998). Incomplete quality of life data in randomized trials: Missing items. Statics in Medicine, 17(5–7), 679–696.CrossRef

42.

Terwee, C. B., Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Koes, B. W., & de Vet, H. C. (2011). Methodological quality of studies on the measurement properties of neck pain and disability questionnaires: A systematic review. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 34(4), 261–272.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Lai, S. M., Asher, M. A., Burton, D. C., & Carlson, B. B. (2010). Identification of Scoliosis Research Society-22r health-related quality of life questionnaire domains using factor analysis methodology. Spine, 35(12), 1236–1240.PubMed

44.

Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Heymans, M. W., Koes, B. W., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2012). Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 659–670.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

45.

Schellingerhout, J. M., Heymans, M. W., Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., Koes, B. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: A systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 87.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Titel: Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review
verfasst von: Marco Monticone
Claudia Nava
Vittorio Leggero
Barbara Rocca
Stefano Salvaderi
Simona Ferrante
Emilia Ambrosini
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0935-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2015

The STOP-BANG questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Persian version in sleep clinic population

Testing measurement invariance of the GHQ-28 in stroke patients

Overall performance of Oort’s procedure for response shift detection at item level: a pilot simulation study

The use of cognitive interviews to revise the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM)

Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population

Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects

Premium Partner