Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research questionnaires are not always translated appropriately before they are used in new temporal, cultural or linguistic settings. The results based on such instruments may therefore not accurately reflect what they are supposed to measure. This paper aims to illustrate the process and required steps involved in the cross-cultural adaptation of a research instrument using the adaptation process of an attitudinal instrument as an example.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A questionnaire was needed for the implementation of a study in Norway 2007. There was no appropriate instruments available in Norwegian, thus an Australian-English instrument was cross-culturally adapted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The adaptation process included investigation of conceptual and item equivalence. Two forward and two back-translations were synthesized and compared by an expert committee. Thereafter the instrument was pretested and adjusted accordingly. The final questionnaire was administered to opioid maintenance treatment staff (n=140) and harm reduction staff (n=180). The overall response rate was 84%. The original instrument failed confirmatory analysis. Instead a new two-factor scale was identified and found valid in the new setting.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The failure of the original scale highlights the importance of adapting instruments to current research settings. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that concepts within an instrument are equal between the original and target language, time and context. If the described stages in the cross-cultural adaptation process had been omitted, the findings would have been misleading, even if presented with apparent precision. Thus, it is important to consider possible barriers when making a direct comparison between different nations, cultures and times.</p

Staff attitudes and the associations with treatment organisation, clinical practices and outcomes in opioid maintenance treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) there are documented treatment differences both between countries and between OMT programmes. Some of these differences have been associated with staff attitudes. The aim of this study was to 1) assess if there were differences in staff attitudes within a national OMT programme, and 2) investigate the associations of staff attitudes with treatment organisation, clinical practices and outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was a cross-sectional multicentre study. Norwegian OMT staff (<it>n </it>= 140) were invited to participate in this study in 2007 using an instrument measuring attitudes towards OMT. The OMT programme comprised 14 regional centres. Data describing treatment organisation, clinical practices and patient outcomes in these centres were extracted from the annual OMT programme assessment 2007. Centres were divided into three groups based upon mean attitudinal scores and labelled; "rehabilitation-oriented", "harm reduction-oriented" and "intermediate" centres.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All invited staff (<it>n </it>= 140) participated. Staff attitudes differed between the centres. "Rehabilitation-oriented" centres had smaller caseloads, more frequent urine drug screening and increased case management (interdisciplinary meetings). In addition these centres had less drug use and more social rehabilitation among their patients in terms of long-term living arrangements, unemployment, and social security benefits as main income. "Intermediate" centres had the lowest treatment termination rate.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study identified marked variations in staff attitudes between the regional centres within a national OMT programme. These variations were associated with measurable differences in caseload, intensity of case management and patient outcomes.</p