King's College London

Research portal

A systematic survey instrument translation process for multi-country, comparative health workforce studies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

A. Squires, L.H. Aiken, K. van den Heede, W. Sermeus, L. Bruyneel, R. Lindqvist, L. Schoonhoven, I. Stromseng, R. Busse, T. Brzostek, A. Ensio, M. Moreno-Casbas, Anne Marie Rafferty, M. Schubert, D. Zikos, A. Matthews

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)264-273
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Nursing Studies
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2013

King's Authors

Abstract

Background
As health services research (HSR) expands across the globe, researchers will adopt health services and health worker evaluation instruments developed in one country for use in another. This paper explores the cross-cultural methodological challenges involved in translating HSR in the language and context of different health systems.

Objectives
To describe the pre-data collection systematic translation process used in a twelve country, eleven language nursing workforce survey.

Design and settings
We illustrate the potential advantages of Content Validity Indexing (CVI) techniques to validate a nursing workforce survey developed for RN4CAST, a twelve country (Belgium, England, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland), eleven language (with modifications for regional dialects, including Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish), comparative nursing workforce study in Europe.

Participants
Expert review panels comprised of practicing nurses from twelve European countries who evaluated cross-cultural relevance, including translation, of a nursing workforce survey instrument developed by experts in the field.

Methods
The method described in this paper used Content Validity Indexing (CVI) techniques with chance correction and provides researchers with a systematic approach for standardizing language translation processes while simultaneously evaluating the cross-cultural applicability of a survey instrument in the new context.

Results
The cross-cultural evaluation process produced CVI scores for the instrument ranging from .61 to .95. The process successfully identified potentially problematic survey items and errors with translation.

Conclusions
The translation approach described here may help researchers reduce threats to data validity and improve instrument reliability in multinational health services research studies involving comparisons across health systems and language translation.

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454