ArticleCureus2024
The Translation and Adaptation of the Labour Force Survey Disability Module (LFS-DM) Into Hindi.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Disability assessments are crucial for identifying barriers faced by individuals with disabilities, particularly in countries like India, where disability is often underreported. The Labour Force Survey Disability Module (LFS-DM) is a widely used tool for disability assessment. It is available in English, and Indian Hindi-speaking people who are not proficient in English may face difficulties in responding to it. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the LFS-DM into Hindi. This will improve its accessibility and relevance for Hindi-speaking populations in India. Methods The LFS-DM was translated into Hindi using a forward and backward translation process involving three bilingual experts. The resulting Hindi version was reviewed for conceptual equivalence (on a 10-point scale) by three healthcare professionals. Pilot testing was conducted with 51 participants with various disabilities who completed the questionnaire and participated in cognitive interviews. The test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a two-week interval between administrations. Results The linguistic validation process ensured that the Hindi version of the LFS-DM was conceptually equivalent to the original English version with an average score of 9.57 ±0.48. Pilot testing revealed that all participants (27 males, 24 females, mean age: 45.6 ±7.8 years) easily understood the questions, with no major issues reported. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent, with ICC ranging from 0.843 (minimum) to 0.999 (maximum). Conclusions The Hindi-translated LFS-DM was linguistically valid and had similar conceptual equivalence with the original questionnaire. It showed good to excellent test-retest reliability. Hence, it can be used in the assessment of disability among Hindi-speaking populations. This tool can be used in future research, healthcare assessments, and policy development, contributing to more inclusive practices for persons with disabilities in India.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.