Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 431–438 | Cite as

Translation of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) into three south Asian languages and preliminary evaluation of SDI-21(Urdu)

  • Naheed Hanif
  • Nimarta Dharni
  • Adam Smith
  • Sangeeta Chattoo
  • Galina Velikova
  • Chris Bradley
  • Dan Stark
  • Penny Wright
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

In the United Kingdom, cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires would allow for inclusivity in assessment in cancer clinics for non-English speakers. The aim was to translate the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) into Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi and undertake preliminary evaluation of translated versions.

Methods

The study comprised three stages: (1) translation/back translation and evaluation of cultural equivalence of the SDI-21, (2) south Asian (SA) patient evaluation of SDI-21 translations and (3) evaluation using Rasch analysis comparing English and Urdu SDI-21 from data pooled from this and three other studies.

Results

Forward/backward translation resulted in minor amendments particularly in forward translation of SDI-21(Hindi). The majority of the 55 patients interviewed found the SDI-21 acceptable and clear, resulting in no amendments (all versions). Rasch analysis demonstrated good fit. Differential item functioning (DIF) was found for one item, in the comparison of white English (WE)- and SA Urdu-speaking groups. Detailed DIF analysis comparing self-completion and read-aloud administration by language group demonstrated this DIF only held for the comparison between SA English speakers (self-completion) and SA Urdu (read out).

Conclusions

Translated versions are culturally and linguistically acceptable. The SDI-21 (Urdu) performs similarly to the English version when self-completed.

Keywords

Cancer Cultural equivalence Questionnaires Translation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0706-10284). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Funding for NH was from Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Research and Development Unit. Thanks to participants and translators.

References

  1. 1.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M. A., Lynch, P., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Social problems in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 87(10), 1099–1104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cancer Action Team. (2007). Holistic common assessment of supportive and palliative care needs for adults with cancer: assessment guidance. London: Cancer Action Team.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holland, J. G., & Reznik, I. (2005). Pathways for psychosocial care of cancer survivors. Cancer, 104(11), 2624–2637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M., Johnston, C., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2005). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 373–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. (2007). Measuring social difficulties in routine patient-centred assessment: A Rasch analysis of the social difficulties inventory. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 823–831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Office for National Statistics. (2005). Ethnicity. People & migration [serial on the Internet]. Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=764&Pos=4&ColRank=1&Rank=176. Accessed November 24, 2009.
  7. 7.
    Chattoo, S., Ahmed, W., Haworth, M., & Lennard, R. (2002). South Asian and white patients with advanced cancer: patients’ and families experiences of the illness and perceived needs for care. London: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Worth, A., Irshad, T., Bhopal, R., Brown, D., Lawton, J., Grant, E., et al. (2009). Vulnerability and access to care for South Asian Sikh and Muslim patients with life limiting illness in Scotland: Prospective longitudinal qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 338, b183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department of Health. (2007). Cancer reform strategy. London: Crown.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parker, R., & Hopwood, P. (2000). Literature review: quality of life of black and ethnic minority groups with cancer. Manchester: Christie Hospital.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright, P., Marshall, L., Smith, A., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. (2008). Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI). European Journal of Cancer, 44, 1529–1535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright, P., Smith, A., Roberts, K., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. (2007). Screening for social difficulties in cancer patients: Clinical utility of the social difficulties inventory. British Journal of Cancer, 97, 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wright, P., Smith, A., Keding, A., & Velikova, G. (in press). The social difficulties inventory (SDI): Development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff. Psycho-oncology.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cull, A., Sprangers, M., Bjordal, K., Aaronson, N., West, K., & Bottomley, A. (2002). EORTC quality of life group translation procedure. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 115–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N. K., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses. Quality of Life Research, 15(6), 1103–1115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lai, J., Cella, D., Chang, C. H., Bode, R. K., & Heinemann, A. W. (2003). Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: An illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Quality of Life Research, 12(5), 485–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naheed Hanif
    • 1
  • Nimarta Dharni
    • 2
  • Adam Smith
    • 3
  • Sangeeta Chattoo
    • 4
  • Galina Velikova
    • 3
  • Chris Bradley
    • 5
  • Dan Stark
    • 3
  • Penny Wright
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of LeedsLeedsUK
  4. 4.University of YorkYorkUK
  5. 5.Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations