Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32962989›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2020

Cultural adaptation and content validity of a Chinese translation of the 'Person-Centered Primary Care Measure': findings from cognitive debriefing.

Emily Tsui Yee Tse, Cindy Lo Kuen Lam, Carlos King Ho Wong, Weng Yee Chin, Rebecca S Etz, Stephen J Zyzanski, Kurt C Stange

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily Tsui Yee TseDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China emilyht@hku.hk.ORCID 0000-0001-7409-9507
Cindy Lo Kuen LamDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Carlos King Ho WongDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6895-6071
Weng Yee ChinDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Rebecca S EtzDepartment of Family Medicine & Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Stephen J ZyzanskiCenter for Community Health Integration, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Kurt C StangeCenter for Community Health Integration, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Case Western Reserve University · USUniversity of Hong Kong · HKChinese University of Hong Kong · HKHKU-Pasteur Research Pole · HKVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop an equivalent Chinese translation of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) and to establish its cultural adaptability and content validity through cognitive debriefing.

designThe original English PCPCM was first translated into Chinese by double forward-translation by professional translators. The reconciliated Chinese version was then doubly back-translated into English by two other professional translators blinded to the forward-translation. On affirmation on its linguistic equivalence with the developers of the original English PCPCM, the reconciliated Chinese PCPCM was sent for cognitive debriefing with 20 Chinese-speaking primary care subjects by a trained interviewer using structured probing questions to collect their opinions on the clarity, comprehensibility and relevance of each item and response option in the Measure.

settingSubjects were invited from a primary care clinic in Hong Kong to undergo the cognitive debriefing interviews. The interviews were divided into four groups chronologically to allow revision of the items to be made in between.

participantsTen males and 10 females above the age of 18 completed the cognitive interviews. They were all Cantonese-speaking Chinese recruited by convenience sampling. Subjects with cognitive impairment, could not read Chinese, too old or too sick to complete the interviews were excluded from the study.

resultsAn average of 3.3 min (range 3-4 min) was required for the subjects to self-complete the Measure. All items were generally perceived to be easily understood and relevant. Modifications were made to items with the content validity index (CVI) on clarity or understanding <0.8 in each round of the interviews or if a majority of the subjects suggested rewording. Revisions were made to two items in the Chinese PCPCM throughout the whole cognitive debriefing process before the final version was confirmed. The average CVI on clarity of the Chinese PCPCM items ranged from 0.75 to 1. The average CVI on understanding ranged from 0.7 to 1. The average CVI on relevance ranged from 0.55 to 1.

conclusionsThe content validity of the PCPCM was ascertained in terms of its clarity, understandability and relevance to allow further testing of its psychometric properties in a larger Chinese population.

Indexed as

Cultural CompetencyPrimary Health CarePsychometricsTranslationsChinaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CareReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairespatient-centered careprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID32962989
PMCPMC7509974
OpenAlexW3089076493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.