Translation, validity, and reliability of disability rating scale in Iranian patients with traumatic brain injury

IF 0.3 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS

Archives of Trauma Research Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.4103/atr.atr_14_20

K. Ezzati, S. Yousefzadeh-Chabok, Sajjad Rezaei, Z. Reihanian

{"title":"Translation, validity, and reliability of disability rating scale in Iranian patients with traumatic brain injury","authors":"K. Ezzati, S. Yousefzadeh-Chabok, Sajjad Rezaei, Z. Reihanian","doi":"10.4103/atr.atr_14_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Disability Rating Scale (DRS) is a short, efficient, and rapid instrument for assessing levels of functional disability, but little information is available on the translation and psychometric properties of its Persian version, especially for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Persian version of DRS and to determine the psychometric properties of the Persian version of this scale in patients with TBI. Materials and Methods: In this analytical cross-sectional study, 191 TBI patients (age range, 16–86 years) referred to the physiotherapy Center of PourSina Hospital in Rasht, Iran, were selected through census sampling. First, the DRS was translated into Persian, and then, the validity, reliability, and repeatability of DRS scores were evaluated. All patients were evaluated on admission and at discharge through the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Results: According to the reports of the translators, translation of the DRS into Persian language was easy. The quality of translation (including translation clarity, common language usage, conceptual equivalence, and overall quality of translation) was generally favorable. Inter-raters' reliability on admission and at discharge stages was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93–0.94). Cronbach's alpha values for the internal consistency of DRS on admission and at discharge stages were 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The results showed a strong inverse relationship of DRS scores on admission and at discharge with GCS and FIM scores (in all cases more than 0.70, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The validity, reliability, and repeatability of the DRS scores for the Persian version were confirmed. These results reflect that DRS can be used to determine the effects of therapeutic/rehabilitation interventions on levels of functional disability in Iranian patients with TBI.","PeriodicalId":45486,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Trauma Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Trauma Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/atr.atr_14_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The Disability Rating Scale (DRS) is a short, efficient, and rapid instrument for assessing levels of functional disability, but little information is available on the translation and psychometric properties of its Persian version, especially for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Persian version of DRS and to determine the psychometric properties of the Persian version of this scale in patients with TBI. Materials and Methods: In this analytical cross-sectional study, 191 TBI patients (age range, 16–86 years) referred to the physiotherapy Center of PourSina Hospital in Rasht, Iran, were selected through census sampling. First, the DRS was translated into Persian, and then, the validity, reliability, and repeatability of DRS scores were evaluated. All patients were evaluated on admission and at discharge through the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Results: According to the reports of the translators, translation of the DRS into Persian language was easy. The quality of translation (including translation clarity, common language usage, conceptual equivalence, and overall quality of translation) was generally favorable. Inter-raters' reliability on admission and at discharge stages was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93–0.94). Cronbach's alpha values for the internal consistency of DRS on admission and at discharge stages were 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The results showed a strong inverse relationship of DRS scores on admission and at discharge with GCS and FIM scores (in all cases more than 0.70, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The validity, reliability, and repeatability of the DRS scores for the Persian version were confirmed. These results reflect that DRS can be used to determine the effects of therapeutic/rehabilitation interventions on levels of functional disability in Iranian patients with TBI.

查看原文本刊更多论文

伤残评定量表在伊朗外伤性脑损伤患者中的翻译、效度和信度

背景:残障评定量表(DRS)是一种短小、高效、快速的评估功能性残疾水平的工具，但关于其波斯语版本的翻译和心理测量特性的信息很少，特别是对于创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者。本研究的目的是翻译和改编波斯语版本的DRS，并确定该量表波斯语版本在TBI患者中的心理测量特性。材料和方法:在本分析性横断面研究中，通过人口普查抽样选择了伊朗Rasht PourSina医院物理治疗中心的191例TBI患者(年龄范围16-86岁)。首先将DRS量表翻译成波斯语，然后对DRS量表的效度、信度和可重复性进行评估。所有患者在入院和出院时均通过格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和功能独立性量表(FIM)进行评估。结果:根据翻译人员的报告，将DRS翻译成波斯语很容易。翻译质量(包括译文清晰度、通用语言使用、概念对等性和翻译整体质量)总体较好。评分者在入院和出院阶段的信度极好(类内相关系数= 0.93-0.94)。入院期和出院期DRS内部一致性的Cronbach’s alpha值分别为0.96和0.97。结果显示，入院时和出院时DRS评分与GCS和FIM评分呈强烈的负相关(所有病例均大于0.70,P < 0.0001)。结论:波斯语版DRS评分的效度、信度和可重复性均得到证实。这些结果表明，DRS可用于确定治疗/康复干预对伊朗TBI患者功能残疾水平的影响。

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

Archives of Trauma Research ORTHOPEDICS-

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

25 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in all fields related to trauma or injury. Archives of Trauma Research is an authentic clinical journal, which is devoted to the particular compilation of the latest worldwide and interdisciplinary approach and findings, including original manuscripts, meta-analyses and reviews, health economic papers, debates, and consensus statements of clinical relevant to the trauma and injury field. Readers are generally specialists in the fields of general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, or any other related fields of basic and clinical sciences..