|LETTER TO THE EDITOR
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 400
A second look at the reliability and validity of the persian language version of the female lower urinary tract symptoms' long form questionnaire
Mehrdad Amir-Behghadami1, Ali Janati2
1 Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management (IceHM), Department of Health Service Management, School of Health Services Management and Medical Informatics; Student Research Committee (SRC), Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management (IceHM), Department of Health Service Management, School of Health Services Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz, Iran
|Date of Web Publication||19-Aug-2019|
Mr. Mehrdad Amir-Behghadami
School of Management and Medical Informatics, University Rd., Tabriz
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. A second look at the reliability and validity of the persian language version of the female lower urinary tract symptoms' long form questionnaire. Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res 2019;24:400
|How to cite this URL:|
Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. A second look at the reliability and validity of the persian language version of the female lower urinary tract symptoms' long form questionnaire. Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2021 Aug 5];24:400. Available from: https://www.ijnmrjournal.net/text.asp?2019/24/5/400/264655
The present letter is to concern the article written by Pourmomeny, et al. First off, we acknowledge the efforts made by the editors of Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research to help publish such an indicative article. However, there seem to be some points neglected by the authors.
Psychometrics plays a pivotal role in measuring health outcomes. Hence, depending on different cultures, resorting to scales requires their appropriate compatibility. Regarding this point, the study should have applied cross-cultural adaptation rather than cross-sectional design. A cross-cultural adaptation questionnaire comprises translation, adaptation, calculation of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. However, translation process, validity assessment, and factor analysis seem to need clear explanation.
The translation process is conducted as follows:first, a professional bilingual translator translates English version of FLUTS-LF into Persian. Subsequently, another bilingual translator translates the translated version back into English. Second, the latter translation is juxtaposed with the original English version by the expert panel mentioned in the article. Then, the cultural and linguistic equivalence of all items are evaluated. Third, a pre-survey is performed among several women and based on their feedback modifications are conducted. Finally, a consensus on cultural equivalence is concluded.
Content validity is a logical and orderly approach that must be carried out separately from the translation phase. This is calculated through modified KAPPA by means of qualitative and quantitative approaches. It is done in a way that the Persian version of the questionnaire is assessed at least by 10 specialists with adequate knowledge and experience in the field of urology and gastrointestinal tract. And, the specialists present their ideas for improving the quality of the scale as well as judging the existing items in terms of clarity and relevance.
The results obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis show that the model fits. However, the results of this analysis are not illustrated through a figure to guide the researchers. Furthermore, factor loading, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR) have not been calculated to verify convergent validity. Similarly, the AVE values to the squares of the correlation coefficients between factors have not been compared to verify the discriminant validity of the FLUTS-LF. In order to improve fitness of the model, we suggest the authors to examine the correction indices for the regression weights so as to determine which covariance is among indicators or factors.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
Nothing to declare.
| References|| |
Pourmomeny A, AlebouyeLangeroudi S, Zargham M. Reliability and validity of the Persian Language version of the female lower urinary tract symptoms' long form questionnaire. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2018;23:421-5.
Arafat S, Chowdhury HR, Qusar M, Hafez M. Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. J Behav Health 2016;5:129-36.
Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol 1970;1:185-216.
Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30:459-67.