Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical validation of the neonatal skin condition score to Brazilian Portuguese

Objective: to describe the process of cross-cultural adaptation and clinical validation of the Neonatal Skin Condition Score. Methods: this methodological cross-cultural adaptation study included five steps: initial translation, synthesis of the initial translation, back translation, review by an Committee of Specialists and testing of the pre-final version, and an observational cross-sectional study with analysis of the psychometric properties using the Adjusted Kappa, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, and Bland- Altman Method statistical tests. A total of 38 professionals were randomly recruited to review the clarity of the adapted instrument, and 47 newborns hospitalized in the Neonatology Unit of the Clinical Hospital of Porto Alegre were selected by convenience for the clinical validation of the instrument. Results: the adapted scale showed approximately 85% clarity. The statistical tests showed moderate to strong intra and interobserver item to item reliability and from strong to very strong in the total score, with a variation of less than 2 points among the scores assigned by the nurses to the patients. Conclusions: the scale was adapted and validated to Brazilian Portuguese. The psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Neonatal Skin Condition Score instrument were similar to the validation results of the original scale

Classificações de enfermagem: mapeamento entre termos do foco da prática Clasificaciones de enfermería: mapeamento entre los términos del foco de la práctica Nursing classification: cross-mapping between focus axis terms

Devido às mudanças estruturais das classificações: CIPE®beta 2, versão 1.0 e CIPESC®, este estudo descritivo tem como objetivo construir um mapeamento entre os termos do foco da prática, identificando semelhanças e diferenças. A CIPE® 1.0 em relação à beta 2 apresenta: 41% dos termos novos; 33% idênticos; 4% com conceito ampliado; 12% modificados; 8% diferentes; e 2% conceituados apenas na beta 2. A CIPE® 1.0 em relação à CIPESC® apresenta: 79% são novos; 8% idênticos; 1% ampliado; 5% modificados; 4% diferentes; e 3% sem conceito. Houve dificuldades oriundas do processo de tradução e editoração da CIPE® 1.0 e da inexistência de conceitos em alguns termos da CIPESC®. Este trabalho desencadeará um processo de validação dos termos não equivalentes.<br>Debido a los cambios estructurales de las clasificaciones: CIPE® beta-2, versión 1.0 y CIPESC®, este estudio descriptivo tiene como objetivo construir un mapeamiento entre los términos del foco de la práctica, identificando semblenzas y diferencias. La CIPE® 1.0 en relación a beta-2 presenta: 41% de los términos nuevos; 33% idénticos; 4% con el concepto ampliado; 12% modificados; 8% diferentes y 2% conceptuados solamente en la versión beta-2. La CIPE® 1.0 en relación a CIPESC® presenta: 79% son nuevos; 8% idéntico, 1% ampliado; 5% modificados; 4% diferentes y 3% sin concepto. Hubieron dificultades provenientes del proceso brasileiro de traducción y editoración de la CIPE® 1.0 y de la ausencia de algunos conceptos en términos de CIPESC®. Este trabajo va a iniciar un proceso de validación de los términos no equivalentes.<br>Due to structural changes of classifications: ICNP® beta-2, version 1.0 and CIPESC®, this descriptive study aims to identify similarities and differences by building a map between the terms of the focus of practice. The ICNP® 1.0 on the beta-2 shows: 41% are new terms, 33% identical, 4% with expanded concepts, 12% modified; 8% different and 2% there are concepts only in beta-2. The ICNP® 1.0 in relation to CIPESC® presents: 79% are new; 8% identical; 1% extended; 5% modified; 4% different and 3% without concept. There were difficulties from the process of Brazilian translating and publishing of ICNP® 1.0 and the absence of some concepts in terms of CIPESC®. This work will trigger the validation process for non equivalent terms