ArticleJournal of participatory research methods2025
The 10-Step Cross-cultural Equivalence Process for Developing Measures for Culturally Informed Research.
Article in Journal of participatory research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dyspareunia and Functioning Among Somali Women Who Have Experienced Female Genital Cutting.Journal of sex research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We describe a comprehensive ten step process for choosing and adapting existing scales or questionnaires to the Somali language for the Our Body Our Health (OBOH) study. The OBOH study aims to examine sexual pain, coping with pain, sexual health, and decision-making in a sample of Somali women living in the United States and have experienced female genital cutting (FGC). We describe how we used existing guidelines for construct equivalence, semantic equivalence, technical equivalence and translation, while also expanding on these guidelines by engaging community members through a variety of mechanisms. We also used an iterative process where decisions were made, refined, and sometimes overturned as we gathered more community driven feedback. Through this process we adapted 11 scales, created three questionnaires, and translated all. We considered five other scales and describe the reasons we did not use them for the final survey. Finally, we present lessons learned and recommendations for other researchers.
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.