Cargando…
Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK)
The Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) questionnaire model is based on item response theory using a graded response (responses reflect increasing difficulty). The purpose of the VISA-G is to monitor patient outcomes and evaluate treatment strategies for people with greater trochanteric p...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32181058 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8724 |
_version_ | 1783504287810191360 |
---|---|
author | Jorgensen, Jens Erik Fearon, Angela M. Mølgaard, Carsten M. Kristinsson, Jens Andreasen, Jane |
author_facet | Jorgensen, Jens Erik Fearon, Angela M. Mølgaard, Carsten M. Kristinsson, Jens Andreasen, Jane |
author_sort | Jorgensen, Jens Erik |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) questionnaire model is based on item response theory using a graded response (responses reflect increasing difficulty). The purpose of the VISA-G is to monitor patient outcomes and evaluate treatment strategies for people with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). The primary aim of the current study was to translate and culturally adapt the VISA-G into a Danish context (DK) through forward and back translation and cognitive interviews. The second aim was to establish test–retest reliability and face validity of the VISA-G into a Danish context (DK). No major disagreements were observed between the original and translated versions of the questionnaire. A total of 58 heterogenous asymptomatic, and 49 symptomatic respondents (response rate: 92% and 78% respectively) completed the VISA-G.DK twice, 1 week apart. The VISA-G.DK had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: asymptomatic = 0.86; symptomatic = 0.98). The test–retest reliability was excellent for the total score: ICC: 0.961 (95% CI [0.933–0.978]). Standard Error Measurement was calculated to be 0.6. Bland–Altman plots showed no significant or relevant differences from test to retest in the total score with mean differences below 1 (0.61). The minimal detectable change was 3.17 for both groups. The VISA-G.DK was found to be valid, reliable and acceptable for use in the Danish population. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7060749 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70607492020-03-16 Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) Jorgensen, Jens Erik Fearon, Angela M. Mølgaard, Carsten M. Kristinsson, Jens Andreasen, Jane PeerJ Anatomy and Physiology The Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) questionnaire model is based on item response theory using a graded response (responses reflect increasing difficulty). The purpose of the VISA-G is to monitor patient outcomes and evaluate treatment strategies for people with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). The primary aim of the current study was to translate and culturally adapt the VISA-G into a Danish context (DK) through forward and back translation and cognitive interviews. The second aim was to establish test–retest reliability and face validity of the VISA-G into a Danish context (DK). No major disagreements were observed between the original and translated versions of the questionnaire. A total of 58 heterogenous asymptomatic, and 49 symptomatic respondents (response rate: 92% and 78% respectively) completed the VISA-G.DK twice, 1 week apart. The VISA-G.DK had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: asymptomatic = 0.86; symptomatic = 0.98). The test–retest reliability was excellent for the total score: ICC: 0.961 (95% CI [0.933–0.978]). Standard Error Measurement was calculated to be 0.6. Bland–Altman plots showed no significant or relevant differences from test to retest in the total score with mean differences below 1 (0.61). The minimal detectable change was 3.17 for both groups. The VISA-G.DK was found to be valid, reliable and acceptable for use in the Danish population. PeerJ Inc. 2020-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7060749/ /pubmed/32181058 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8724 Text en © 2020 Jorgensen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Anatomy and Physiology Jorgensen, Jens Erik Fearon, Angela M. Mølgaard, Carsten M. Kristinsson, Jens Andreasen, Jane Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) |
title | Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) |
title_full | Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) |
title_fullStr | Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) |
title_full_unstemmed | Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) |
title_short | Translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the VISA-G patient-reported outcome tool into Danish (VISA-G.DK) |
title_sort | translation, validation and test–retest reliability of the visa-g patient-reported outcome tool into danish (visa-g.dk) |
topic | Anatomy and Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32181058 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8724 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jorgensenjenserik translationvalidationandtestretestreliabilityofthevisagpatientreportedoutcometoolintodanishvisagdk AT fearonangelam translationvalidationandtestretestreliabilityofthevisagpatientreportedoutcometoolintodanishvisagdk AT mølgaardcarstenm translationvalidationandtestretestreliabilityofthevisagpatientreportedoutcometoolintodanishvisagdk AT kristinssonjens translationvalidationandtestretestreliabilityofthevisagpatientreportedoutcometoolintodanishvisagdk AT andreasenjane translationvalidationandtestretestreliabilityofthevisagpatientreportedoutcometoolintodanishvisagdk |