Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project

Susan D. Keller, John E. Ware, Barbara Gandek, Neil K. Aaronson, Jordi Alonso, Giovanni Apolone, Jakob B. Bjorner, John Brazier, Monika Bullinger, Shunichi Fukuhara, Stein Kaasa, Alain Leplège, Robert W. Sanson-Fisher, Marianne Sullivan, Sharon Wood-Dauphinee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The similarity in meaning assigned to response choice labels from the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) was evaluated across countries. Convenience samples of judges (range, 10 to 117; median = 48) from 13 countries rated translations of response choice labels, using a variation of the Thurstone method of equal appearing intervals. Judges marked a point on a 10-cm line representing the magnitude of a response choice label (e.g., 'good' relative to the anchors of 'poor' and 'excellent'). Ratings were evaluated to determine the ordinal consistency of response choice labels within a response scale; the degree to which differences between adjacent response choice labels were equal interval; and the amount of variance due to response choice label, country, judge, and interaction between response choice label and country. Results confirmed the hypothesized ordering of response choice labels; the percentage of ordinal pairs ranged from 88.7% to 100% (median = 98.2%) across countries and response scales. Examination of the average magnitudes of response choice labels supported the 'quasi-interval' nature of the scales. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results supported the generalizability of response choice magnitudes across countries; labels explained 64% to 77% of the variance in ratings, and country explained 1% to 3%. These results support the equivalence of SF-36 response choice labels across countries. Departures from the assumption of equal intervals, when observed, were similar across countries and were greatest for the two response scales that are recalibrated under standard SF-36 scoring. Results provide justification for scoring translations of individual items using standard SF-36 scoring; whether these items form the same scales in other countries as they do in the United States is evaluated with tests of scaling assumptions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)933-944
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume51
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1998

Fingerprint

Health Surveys
Analysis of Variance

Keywords

  • Categorical rating scales
  • Questionnaires
  • SF-36 Health Survey
  • Thurstone scaling
  • Translations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels : Results from the IQOLA Project. / Keller, Susan D.; Ware, John E.; Gandek, Barbara; Aaronson, Neil K.; Alonso, Jordi; Apolone, Giovanni; Bjorner, Jakob B.; Brazier, John; Bullinger, Monika; Fukuhara, Shunichi; Kaasa, Stein; Leplège, Alain; Sanson-Fisher, Robert W.; Sullivan, Marianne; Wood-Dauphinee, Sharon.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 51, No. 11, 11.1998, p. 933-944.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Keller, SD, Ware, JE, Gandek, B, Aaronson, NK, Alonso, J, Apolone, G, Bjorner, JB, Brazier, J, Bullinger, M, Fukuhara, S, Kaasa, S, Leplège, A, Sanson-Fisher, RW, Sullivan, M & Wood-Dauphinee, S 1998, 'Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 933-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5
Keller, Susan D. ; Ware, John E. ; Gandek, Barbara ; Aaronson, Neil K. ; Alonso, Jordi ; Apolone, Giovanni ; Bjorner, Jakob B. ; Brazier, John ; Bullinger, Monika ; Fukuhara, Shunichi ; Kaasa, Stein ; Leplège, Alain ; Sanson-Fisher, Robert W. ; Sullivan, Marianne ; Wood-Dauphinee, Sharon. / Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels : Results from the IQOLA Project. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1998 ; Vol. 51, No. 11. pp. 933-944.
@article{dbbe9c8bdec54cc080d69a05df30ed13,
title = "Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project",
abstract = "The similarity in meaning assigned to response choice labels from the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) was evaluated across countries. Convenience samples of judges (range, 10 to 117; median = 48) from 13 countries rated translations of response choice labels, using a variation of the Thurstone method of equal appearing intervals. Judges marked a point on a 10-cm line representing the magnitude of a response choice label (e.g., 'good' relative to the anchors of 'poor' and 'excellent'). Ratings were evaluated to determine the ordinal consistency of response choice labels within a response scale; the degree to which differences between adjacent response choice labels were equal interval; and the amount of variance due to response choice label, country, judge, and interaction between response choice label and country. Results confirmed the hypothesized ordering of response choice labels; the percentage of ordinal pairs ranged from 88.7{\%} to 100{\%} (median = 98.2{\%}) across countries and response scales. Examination of the average magnitudes of response choice labels supported the 'quasi-interval' nature of the scales. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results supported the generalizability of response choice magnitudes across countries; labels explained 64{\%} to 77{\%} of the variance in ratings, and country explained 1{\%} to 3{\%}. These results support the equivalence of SF-36 response choice labels across countries. Departures from the assumption of equal intervals, when observed, were similar across countries and were greatest for the two response scales that are recalibrated under standard SF-36 scoring. Results provide justification for scoring translations of individual items using standard SF-36 scoring; whether these items form the same scales in other countries as they do in the United States is evaluated with tests of scaling assumptions.",
keywords = "Categorical rating scales, Questionnaires, SF-36 Health Survey, Thurstone scaling, Translations",
author = "Keller, {Susan D.} and Ware, {John E.} and Barbara Gandek and Aaronson, {Neil K.} and Jordi Alonso and Giovanni Apolone and Bjorner, {Jakob B.} and John Brazier and Monika Bullinger and Shunichi Fukuhara and Stein Kaasa and Alain Lepl{\`e}ge and Sanson-Fisher, {Robert W.} and Marianne Sullivan and Sharon Wood-Dauphinee",
year = "1998",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "933--944",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels

T2 - Results from the IQOLA Project

AU - Keller, Susan D.

AU - Ware, John E.

AU - Gandek, Barbara

AU - Aaronson, Neil K.

AU - Alonso, Jordi

AU - Apolone, Giovanni

AU - Bjorner, Jakob B.

AU - Brazier, John

AU - Bullinger, Monika

AU - Fukuhara, Shunichi

AU - Kaasa, Stein

AU - Leplège, Alain

AU - Sanson-Fisher, Robert W.

AU - Sullivan, Marianne

AU - Wood-Dauphinee, Sharon

PY - 1998/11

Y1 - 1998/11

N2 - The similarity in meaning assigned to response choice labels from the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) was evaluated across countries. Convenience samples of judges (range, 10 to 117; median = 48) from 13 countries rated translations of response choice labels, using a variation of the Thurstone method of equal appearing intervals. Judges marked a point on a 10-cm line representing the magnitude of a response choice label (e.g., 'good' relative to the anchors of 'poor' and 'excellent'). Ratings were evaluated to determine the ordinal consistency of response choice labels within a response scale; the degree to which differences between adjacent response choice labels were equal interval; and the amount of variance due to response choice label, country, judge, and interaction between response choice label and country. Results confirmed the hypothesized ordering of response choice labels; the percentage of ordinal pairs ranged from 88.7% to 100% (median = 98.2%) across countries and response scales. Examination of the average magnitudes of response choice labels supported the 'quasi-interval' nature of the scales. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results supported the generalizability of response choice magnitudes across countries; labels explained 64% to 77% of the variance in ratings, and country explained 1% to 3%. These results support the equivalence of SF-36 response choice labels across countries. Departures from the assumption of equal intervals, when observed, were similar across countries and were greatest for the two response scales that are recalibrated under standard SF-36 scoring. Results provide justification for scoring translations of individual items using standard SF-36 scoring; whether these items form the same scales in other countries as they do in the United States is evaluated with tests of scaling assumptions.

AB - The similarity in meaning assigned to response choice labels from the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) was evaluated across countries. Convenience samples of judges (range, 10 to 117; median = 48) from 13 countries rated translations of response choice labels, using a variation of the Thurstone method of equal appearing intervals. Judges marked a point on a 10-cm line representing the magnitude of a response choice label (e.g., 'good' relative to the anchors of 'poor' and 'excellent'). Ratings were evaluated to determine the ordinal consistency of response choice labels within a response scale; the degree to which differences between adjacent response choice labels were equal interval; and the amount of variance due to response choice label, country, judge, and interaction between response choice label and country. Results confirmed the hypothesized ordering of response choice labels; the percentage of ordinal pairs ranged from 88.7% to 100% (median = 98.2%) across countries and response scales. Examination of the average magnitudes of response choice labels supported the 'quasi-interval' nature of the scales. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results supported the generalizability of response choice magnitudes across countries; labels explained 64% to 77% of the variance in ratings, and country explained 1% to 3%. These results support the equivalence of SF-36 response choice labels across countries. Departures from the assumption of equal intervals, when observed, were similar across countries and were greatest for the two response scales that are recalibrated under standard SF-36 scoring. Results provide justification for scoring translations of individual items using standard SF-36 scoring; whether these items form the same scales in other countries as they do in the United States is evaluated with tests of scaling assumptions.

KW - Categorical rating scales

KW - Questionnaires

KW - SF-36 Health Survey

KW - Thurstone scaling

KW - Translations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032212643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032212643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5

DO - 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 9817110

AN - SCOPUS:0032212643

VL - 51

SP - 933

EP - 944

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 11

ER -