GUIDELINES USED IN CROSS CULTURAL ADAPTATION OF PATIENT RATED TENNIS ELBOW EVALUATION SCALE: A NARRATIVE REVIEW
Abstract
This review was done to find out and scrutinize procedures used in cross cultural adaptation of Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scale and describe it. Articles were searched from different databases using key words and reviewed critically. PRISMA checklist was used for analysing and reporting articles.8 studies met the criterias for inclusion in the review. The overall rating for the process of cross cultural adaptation process was good. The studies used the guidelines given by Beaton et al, WHO and criterias suggested by Terwee CB et al for cross cultural adaptation of an instrument. Translation and cross cultural adaptation process requires careful selection of the members according to suggested guidelines and should be done with great care to provide best properties.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB.
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of
self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
;25(24):3186-3191.
Rupareliya DA, Shukla Y. Need for Cross-Cultural
Adaptation of Self-Reported Health Measures: Review
Study. IJPOT. 2020;14(2):41-44.
Shafiee E, Macdermid JC, Walton D, et al.
Psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of
the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation ( PRTEE ); a
systematic review and meta- analysis. Disabil Rehabil.
;0(0):1-16.
Macdermid JC. The Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow
Evaluation ( PRTEE ) © User Manual. 2010;(June).
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol.
;62(10):1006-1012.
Menezes Costa L da C, Maher CG, McAuley JH, Costa
LOP. Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptations of
McGill Pain Questionnaire reveals a paucity of clinimetric
testing. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):934-943.
Nilsson P, Baigi A, Marklund B, Månsson J. Cross-
cultural adaptation and determination of the reliability and
validity of PRTEE-S (Patientskattad Utvärdering av
Tennisarmbåge), a questionnaire for patients with lateral
epicondylalgia, in a Swedish population. BMC
Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9.
Altan L, Ercan I, Konur S. Reliability and validity of
Turkish version of the patient rated tennis elbow
evaluation. Rheumatol Int. 2010;30(8):1049-1054.
Cacchio A, Necozione S, MacDermid JC, et al. Cross-
cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the
Italian version of the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow
Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire. Phys Ther.
;92(8):1036-1045.
Van Ark M, Zwerver J, Diercks RL, Van Den Akker-
Scheek I. Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability and
validity of the Dutch Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow
Evaluation (PRTEE-D). BMC Musculoskelet Disord.
;15(1).
Stasinopoulos D, Papadopoulos C, Antoniadou M,
Nardi L. Greek adaptation and validation of the Patient-
Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE). J Hand Ther.
;28(3):286-291.
Kaux JF, Delvaux F, Schaus J, et al. Cross-cultural
adaptation and validation of the Patient-Rated Tennis
Elbow Evaluation Questionnaire on lateral elbow
tendinopathy for French-speaking patients. J Hand Ther.
;29(4):496-504.
Trivedi P, Arunachalam R, Sharma S et al. Translation
and validation of Gujarati version of patient-rated tennis
elbow evaluation (PRTEE). Int J Health Sci Res. 2018;
(1):111-115.
Mansoori A, Dehkordi SN, Sohani SM, Moghadam
AN. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Determination of the
Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of the
Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE)
Questionnaire in Iranian Tennis Players. Funct Disabil J.
;2(1):17-26.
WHO Guidelines on Translation and Adaptation of
Instruments. [Internet] Assessed 10 December 2018.
Available at: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/
research_tools/trans lation/en/
Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality
criteria were proposed for measurement properties of
health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol.
;60(1):34-42.
Guillemin,’ F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-
cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life
measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.
;46(12): 1417-1432.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.