Cross-cultural validation of the Dutch Vertigo Symptom Scale - Short Form: dimensionality, reliability and cultural differences in symptom reporting.

IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Anisa S Y Noordzij, Berend Terluin, Johannes C van der Wouden, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Rosie Essery, Lucy Yardley, Otto R Maarsingh, Vincent A van Vugt
{"title":"Cross-cultural validation of the Dutch Vertigo Symptom Scale - Short Form: dimensionality, reliability and cultural differences in symptom reporting.","authors":"Anisa S Y Noordzij, Berend Terluin, Johannes C van der Wouden, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Rosie Essery, Lucy Yardley, Otto R Maarsingh, Vincent A van Vugt","doi":"10.1186/s41687-026-01109-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Vertigo Symptom Scale - Short Form (VSS-SF) is a widely used questionnaire to measure vestibular symptoms such as dizziness and vertigo. Most cross-cultural validations focus only on translation and basic psychometrics, providing limited insight into cross-national comparability. This study aimed to (1) develop and validate a Dutch version of the VSS-SF, and (2) provide novel insights into cross-cultural differences in symptom reporting and the methodological robustness of the scale.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Following international guidelines, we translated and linguistically validated the Dutch VSS-SF. We then compared its dimensional structure, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) with the original British version, using bifactor modeling to test essential unidimensionality. We used data from patients aged 50 years and older with chronic vestibular symptoms who participated in British (n = 296) and Dutch (n = 322) randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Dutch version was well understood. Psychometric evaluation supported essential unidimensionality in both versions (structural coefficient bias < 15%). Reliability was excellent (omega-total 0.920 Dutch; 0.956 British). DIF analysis revealed cultural differences: Dutch patients were less likely to report nausea/vomiting but more likely to report unsteadiness, even at the same symptom level. However, these differences had negligible impact on total scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Dutch VSS-SF is valid and reliable, with scores directly comparable to the British version. Beyond translation, this study shows how advanced psychometric methods reveal both the robustness of the VSS-SF and subtle cultural differences in symptom perception, strengthening its use in multinational research and clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13481963/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-026-01109-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Vertigo Symptom Scale - Short Form (VSS-SF) is a widely used questionnaire to measure vestibular symptoms such as dizziness and vertigo. Most cross-cultural validations focus only on translation and basic psychometrics, providing limited insight into cross-national comparability. This study aimed to (1) develop and validate a Dutch version of the VSS-SF, and (2) provide novel insights into cross-cultural differences in symptom reporting and the methodological robustness of the scale.

Methodology: Following international guidelines, we translated and linguistically validated the Dutch VSS-SF. We then compared its dimensional structure, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) with the original British version, using bifactor modeling to test essential unidimensionality. We used data from patients aged 50 years and older with chronic vestibular symptoms who participated in British (n = 296) and Dutch (n = 322) randomized controlled trials.

Results: The Dutch version was well understood. Psychometric evaluation supported essential unidimensionality in both versions (structural coefficient bias < 15%). Reliability was excellent (omega-total 0.920 Dutch; 0.956 British). DIF analysis revealed cultural differences: Dutch patients were less likely to report nausea/vomiting but more likely to report unsteadiness, even at the same symptom level. However, these differences had negligible impact on total scores.

Conclusions: The Dutch VSS-SF is valid and reliable, with scores directly comparable to the British version. Beyond translation, this study shows how advanced psychometric methods reveal both the robustness of the VSS-SF and subtle cultural differences in symptom perception, strengthening its use in multinational research and clinical practice.

荷兰眩晕症状量表的跨文化验证-简短形式:维度,可靠性和症状报告的文化差异。
背景:眩晕症状简易量表(VSS-SF)是一种广泛用于测量头晕、眩晕等前庭症状的问卷。大多数跨文化验证只关注翻译和基本的心理测量学,对跨国可比性的了解有限。本研究旨在(1)开发和验证荷兰版的VSS-SF,(2)对症状报告的跨文化差异和量表的方法学稳健性提供新的见解。方法:遵循国际准则,我们对荷兰VSS-SF进行了翻译和语言验证。然后,我们将其维度结构、可靠性和差异项目功能(DIF)与原始英国版本进行了比较,使用双因素模型来测试基本单维度性。我们使用了参加英国(n = 296)和荷兰(n = 322)随机对照试验的年龄在50岁及以上的慢性前庭症状患者的数据。结果:荷兰语版本被很好地理解。结论:荷兰版VSS-SF量表有效可靠,得分与英国版VSS-SF量表直接相当。除了翻译之外,本研究还显示了先进的心理测量方法如何揭示VSS-SF的稳健性和症状感知中的微妙文化差异,从而加强了其在跨国研究和临床实践中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书