Skip to main content
Log in

A Model of Equivalence in the Cultural Adaptation of HRQoL Instruments: The Universalist Approach

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) literature presents a confused picture of what ‘equivalence’ in the cross-cultural use of HRQoL questionnaires means and how it can be assessed. Much of this confusion can be attributed to the ‘absolutist’ approach to the cross-cultural adaptation of HRQoL questionnaires. The purpose of this paper is to provide a model of equivalence from a universalist perspective and to link this to the translation and adaptation of HRQoL questionnaires. The model evolved from reviews of the HRQoL and other literatures, interviews and discussions with researchers working in HRQoL and related areas and practical experience in the adaptation and development of HRQoL instruments. The model incorporates six key types of equivalence. For each type of equivalence the paper provides a definition, proposes various strategies for examining whether and how types of equivalence can be achieved, illustrates the relationships between them and suggests the order in which they should be tested. The principal conclusions are: (1) that a universalist approach to the cross-cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments requires that six types of equivalence be taken into account; (2) that these are sufficient to describe and explain the nature of the cross-cultural adaptation process; (3) that this approach requires careful qualitative research in target cultures, particularly in the assessment of conceptual equivalence; and (4) that this qualitative work will provide information which will be fundamental in deciding whether to adapt an existing instrument and which instrument to adapt. It should also result in a more sensitive adaptation of existing instruments and provide valuable information for interpreting the results obtained using HRQoL Instruments in the target culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Herdman MJ, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. Equivalence and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 237–247.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Segall MH, Dasen PR. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

  3. Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments: From minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 451–459.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Patrick DL, Wild DJ, Johnson ES, Wagner TH, Martin MA. Cross-cultural validation of quality of life measures. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hunt SM. Cross-cultural comparability of measures and other issues related to multi-country studies. Br J Med Econ 1993; 6c: 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hui CH, Triandis HC. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1985; 16: 131–152.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Badia X, Salamero M, Alonso J, Ollé A. La Medida de la Salud: Guía de Escalas de Medición en Español. Barcelona: PPU, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Adaptación de una medida de la disfunción relacionada con la enfermedad: La versión Española del sickness Impact Profile. Med Clin 1994; 102: 90–95.

  9. Fox-Rushby J, Mwenesi H, Parker M et al. Questioning premises: health-related quality of life in Kenya. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 428–429.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Badia X, Alonso J. Re-scaling the Spanish version of the Sickness Impact Profile: an opportunity for the assessment of cross-cultural equivalence. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48(7): 949–957.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Leplège A, Verdier A. The adaptation of health status measures: methodological aspects of the translation procedure. In: Shumaker SA, Berzon R, eds. The International Assessment of Health-related Quality of Life: Theory, Translation, Measurement and Analysis. Oxford: Rapid Communications, 1995; 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hunt S, McKenna S. Cross-cultural comparability of QoL measures. Brit J Med Econ 1992; 4: 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shumaker SA, Naughton MJ. The international assessment of health-related quality of life: a theoretical perspective. In: Shumaker S, Berzon R, eds. The International Assessment of Health-related Quality of Life: Theory, Translation, Measurement and Analysis. Oxford: Rapid Communications, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bowling A. What things are important in people's lives? A survey of the public's judgements to inform scales of health-related quality of life. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41(10): 1447–1462.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. WHOQOL Group. The development of the WHO Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Amuyunzu M, Allen T, Mwenesi H et al. (1995) The resonance of language: health terms in Kenya. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 388.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fox-Rushby J, Parker M. Culture and the measurement of health-related quality of life. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 1995; 45: 257–263.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lonner WJ, Berry JW, eds. Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in age: the index of ADL, a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963; 185: 914–919.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Borg I, Shye S. Facet Theory: Form and Content. Advanced Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences, 1995: Vol. 5. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sackman H. Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion, Forecasting and Group Processes. Lexington MA: Lexington Books, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, Marquis P. Language and translation issues. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 575–585.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wright BD, Store MH. Best Test Design. Chicago: Mesa Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fox-Rushby J. First Steps Towards Assessing Semantic Equivalence in the EQ5D: Results of a questionnaire Survey to members of the EuroQol Group. In: Nord E (editor). Oslo EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Discussion papers, 1997.

  26. Barnwell K. Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles, 3rd edn. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sartorius N, Kuyken W. Translation of health status instruments. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ware J, Keller S, Gandek B, Brazier JE, Sullivan M. Evaluating translations of health Status questionnaires. Int J Tech Assoc Health Care 1995; 11(3): 525–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Torgerson WS. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sartorius N. Cross-cultural psychiatry. In: Kisker KP, Meyer JE, Muller C, Stromgren E eds. Psychiatrie der Gegenwart. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 441–449.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 142S–158S.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 1966; 19: 3–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  35. Child D. The Essentials of Factor Analysis. London, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bucquet D, Condor S, Ritchie K. The French version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a comparison of item weights with those of the source version. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 829–835.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178–189.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sell H. The Subjective Well-being Inventory (SUBI). Int J Mental Health 1994; 23(3): 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J. & Badia, X. A Model of Equivalence in the Cultural Adaptation of HRQoL Instruments: The Universalist Approach. Qual Life Res 7, 323–335 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024985930536

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024985930536

Navigation