ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Cross-cultural translation and content validity of the Determinants of Physical Activity Questionnaire (DPAQ) in a Dutch stroke rehabilitation population and their peers without stroke.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStroke patients are less physically active than the general population. Various determinants can affect post-stroke physical activity; understanding these determinants can help tailor targeted interventions. The Determinants of Physical Activity Questionnaire (DPAQ), based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, assesses determinants of physical activity. This study aimed to translate the DPAQ into Dutch and evaluate its content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) in a stroke population and their peers without stroke.
methodsThe DPAQ was translated according to international guidelines. Content validity was assessed at an outpatient neurorehabilitation clinic. Seven stroke patients completed the DPAQ using think aloud and cognitive debriefing. Audio-recorded data were transcribed, coded and analysed. The DPAQ was adapted and re-tested in seven other stroke patients and seven peers.
resultsThe translation and content validity test resulted in the following adaptations: the DPAQ introduction was clarified; the response option ‘Do not want to answer’ was changed to ‘Cannot answer’; and some negatively phrased items were converted to positive. Of the adapted version, most items were found comprehensible and relevant by both stroke patients and peers, except for items on coping planning (complex sentence structure and abstract item-wording) and goal conflict (irrelevant for some patients and peers). The DPAQ was found comprehensive for both patients and peers.
conclusionsA Dutch version of the DPAQ was created, which was considered comprehensible, relevant and comprehensive for both stroke patients and peers without stroke.
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.