Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 220–227 | Cite as

Development and Reliability Testing of Spanish Language and English Language Versions of the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile

  • Joe L. VernaEmail author
  • Leonard N. Matheson
  • Sharon Gables
  • RaNae Hause
  • John M. Mayer


Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the: (1) test–retest reliability of the English and Spanish language versions of the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile (MTAP), (2) cross-cultural adaptation of the Spanish language version of the MTAP, and (3) practicality of both versions in terms of time required for administration. The MTAP is a patient-reported outcome measure of physical function that uses a combination of text and pictorial illustrations. Methods An observational study was conducted with a convenience sample of patients with musculoskeletal disorders from three outpatient physical rehabilitation centers. Participants (n = 110) completed the MTAP two times, whereby the second test was completed 24–72 h after the first test. Focus groups were conducted at the end of the study. Correlation analyses were used to assess test–retest reliability and qualitative analyses were used to assess cultural adaptation of the MTAP. Results The English and Spanish versions of the MTAP displayed good test–retest reliability (ICC 2,1 = 0.87–0.97, p < 0.05). Qualitative analyses demonstrated adequate cross-cultural adaptation of the Spanish language version of the instrument. Conclusions The findings of this study indicate that the MTAP has been adequately adapted from its original English version for use with Spanish-speaking individuals. The MTAP in its current form of 50 items is reliable when administered to individuals with musculoskeletal disorders in either English or Spanish.


Cross-cultural adaptation Patient-reported outcome measure Physical function 



The authors wish to thank Amy St. John and the staff of Spine and Sport Inc for assistance with coordination and data collection for this study, and Monique Lopez for translation and transcription of the focus groups. Appreciation is also given to Dr. Bryan Kemp for assistance with the Older Adult Health Questionnaire.

Conflict of interest

This study was funded by the Vert Mooney Research Foundation, a non-profit 501c(3) organization that developed and currently owns the MTAP. Joe Verna and Leonard Matheson are board members of the Vert Mooney Research Foundation. Joe Verna and Leonard Matheson benefit financially from MTAP sales and subscriptions.


  1. 1.
    Rose M, Bjorner J, Becker J, Fries J, Ware J. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):17–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayer J, Mooney V, Matheson L, Leggett S, Verna J, Balourdas G, et al. The reliability and validity of a new computerized pictorial activity and task sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kramer A, editor. Uniform patient assessment for post-acute care. Aurora: Division of Health Care Policy and Research University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khorsan R, Coulter I, Hawk C, Choate C. Measures in chiropractic research: choosing patient-based outcome assessments. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(5):355–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Medical Association, editor. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. 6th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matheson L. History, design characteristics, and uses of the pictorial activity and task sorts. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(3):175–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matheson L, Mayer J, Mooney V, Sarkin A, Dreisinger T, Verna J, et al. A method to provide a more efficient and reliable measure of self-report physical work capacity for patients with spinal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):46–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mooney V, Matheson L, Verna J, Leggett S, Dreisinger T, Mayer J. Performance-integrated self-report measurement of physical ability. Spine J. 2010;10:433–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kemp B, Adams B. The Older Adult Health And Mood Questionnaire: a measure of geriatric depressive disorder. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1995;8(July):162–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luo X, Lynn GM, Kakouras I, Edwards C, Pietrobon R, Richardson W, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the short form 12-item survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain. Spine. 2003;28(15):1739–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jensen M, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27:117–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krueger R, Casey M, editors. Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hemphill F, Vanneman A, editors. Achievement gaps: how Hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress (NCES 2011-459). Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education; 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale-third edition administration and scoring manual. 3rd ed. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beck A, Steer R, Brown G. Beck depression inventory II. Dallas: Harcourt; 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Millon T. Millon behavioral medicine diagnostic. Toronto: Pearson Assessment; 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ball Foundation. Technical manual for the Ball aptitude battery. 3rd ed. Glen Ellyn: The Ball Foundation; 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flanagan J. SRA Flanagan aptitude classification test manual. Rosemont: NCS; 1964.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guilford J, Zimmerman W. Guilford–Zimmerman aptitude survey manual of instructions and interpretations, revised edition. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammill D, Bryant B. Detroit tests of learning aptitude-primary examiner’s manual. Austin: Pro-Ed; 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McBride J. A computerized adaptive edition of the differential aptitude tests. Washington: Annual Meeting of American Psychological Association; 1986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruch F, Ruch W. Employee aptitude survey. Los Angeles: Psychological Services; 1963.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansen J. Strong-Campbell interest inventory, form T325 of the strong vocational interest blank, revised. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.; 1985.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johansson C. Career assessment inventory, vocational version. RS. 2nd ed. Mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska; 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knapp-Lee L. Use of the COPSystem in career assessment. J Career Assess. 1995;3:411–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain: part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, O’Brien J. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25(24):3115–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewis M, editor. Ethnologue: languages of the world. 16th ed. Dallas: SIL International; 2009.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    US Census Bureau. 2010 Census briefs: the Hispanic population: 2010. Washington: US Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce; 2011.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    US Census Bureau. Projected population by single year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin for the United States: July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2050. Washington: US Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce; 2008.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality, editor. National healthcare disparities report. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joe L. Verna
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Leonard N. Matheson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sharon Gables
    • 2
  • RaNae Hause
    • 2
  • John M. Mayer
    • 4
  1. 1.Vert Mooney Research FoundationSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Spine and Sport, IncSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.EpicRehabSt. LouisUSA
  4. 4.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations