法加联合多系统评价评估(AMSTAR)

L. Brosseau, C. Laroche, P. Guitard, J. King, S. Poitras, L. Casimiro, Julie Alexandra Barette, Dominique Cardinal, S. Cavallo, L. Laferrière, Rose Martini, Nicholas Champoux, Jennifer Taverne, C. Paquette, S. Tremblay, Anne Sutton, R. Galipeau, J. Tourigny, K. Toupin-April, Laurianne Loew, Catrine Demers, Katrine Sauvé-Schenk, N. Paquet, Jacinthe Savard, J. Lagacé, Denyse Pharand, V. Vaillancourt
{"title":"法加联合多系统评价评估(AMSTAR)","authors":"L. Brosseau, C. Laroche, P. Guitard, J. King, S. Poitras, L. Casimiro, Julie Alexandra Barette, Dominique Cardinal, S. Cavallo, L. Laferrière, Rose Martini, Nicholas Champoux, Jennifer Taverne, C. Paquette, S. Tremblay, Anne Sutton, R. Galipeau, J. Tourigny, K. Toupin-April, Laurianne Loew, Catrine Demers, Katrine Sauvé-Schenk, N. Paquet, Jacinthe Savard, J. Lagacé, Denyse Pharand, V. Vaillancourt","doi":"10.3138/ptc.2015-80F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The primary objective was to produce a French-Canadian translation of AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) and to examine the validity of the translation's contents. The secondary and tertiary objectives were to assess the inter-rater reliability and factorial construct validity of this French-Canadian version of AMSTAR. Methods: A modified approach to Vallerand's methodology (1989) for cross-cultural validation was used.1 First, a parallel back-translation of AMSTAR2 was performed, by both professionals and future professionals. Next, a first committee of experts (P1) examined the translations to create a first draft of the French-Canadian version of the AMSTAR tool. This draft was then evaluated and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Following that, 18 future professionals (master's students in physiotherapy) rated this second draft of the instrument for clarity using a seven-point scale (1: very clear; 7: very ambiguous). Lastly, the principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed final changes. Four independent raters used this French-Canadian version of AMSTAR to assess 20 systematic reviews that were published in French after the year 2000. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa coefficient were calculated to measure the tool's inter-rater reliability. A Cronbach's alpha coefficient was also calculated to measure internal consistency. In addition, factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity in order to determine the number of dimensions. Results: The statements on the final version of the AMSTAR tool received an average ambiguity rating of between 1.0 and 1.4. No statement received an average rating below 1.4, which indicates a high level of clarity. Inter-rater reliability (n=4) for the instrument's total score was moderate, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.97). Inter-rater reliability for 82% of the individual items was good, according to the kappa values obtained. Internal consistency was excellent, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). The French-Canadian version of AMSTAR is a unidimensional tool, as confirmed by factor analysis and community values greater than 0.30. Conclusion: A valid French-Canadian version of AMSTAR was created using this rigorous five-step process. This version is unidimensional, with moderate inter-rater reliability for the elements overall, and with excellent internal consistency. This tool could be valuable to French-Canadian professionals and researchers, and could also be of interest to the international Francophone community.","PeriodicalId":390485,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"La version franco-canadienne de l'outil Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)\",\"authors\":\"L. Brosseau, C. Laroche, P. Guitard, J. King, S. Poitras, L. Casimiro, Julie Alexandra Barette, Dominique Cardinal, S. Cavallo, L. Laferrière, Rose Martini, Nicholas Champoux, Jennifer Taverne, C. Paquette, S. Tremblay, Anne Sutton, R. Galipeau, J. Tourigny, K. Toupin-April, Laurianne Loew, Catrine Demers, Katrine Sauvé-Schenk, N. Paquet, Jacinthe Savard, J. Lagacé, Denyse Pharand, V. Vaillancourt\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/ptc.2015-80F\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: The primary objective was to produce a French-Canadian translation of AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) and to examine the validity of the translation's contents. The secondary and tertiary objectives were to assess the inter-rater reliability and factorial construct validity of this French-Canadian version of AMSTAR. Methods: A modified approach to Vallerand's methodology (1989) for cross-cultural validation was used.1 First, a parallel back-translation of AMSTAR2 was performed, by both professionals and future professionals. Next, a first committee of experts (P1) examined the translations to create a first draft of the French-Canadian version of the AMSTAR tool. This draft was then evaluated and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Following that, 18 future professionals (master's students in physiotherapy) rated this second draft of the instrument for clarity using a seven-point scale (1: very clear; 7: very ambiguous). Lastly, the principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed final changes. Four independent raters used this French-Canadian version of AMSTAR to assess 20 systematic reviews that were published in French after the year 2000. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa coefficient were calculated to measure the tool's inter-rater reliability. A Cronbach's alpha coefficient was also calculated to measure internal consistency. In addition, factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity in order to determine the number of dimensions. Results: The statements on the final version of the AMSTAR tool received an average ambiguity rating of between 1.0 and 1.4. No statement received an average rating below 1.4, which indicates a high level of clarity. Inter-rater reliability (n=4) for the instrument's total score was moderate, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.97). Inter-rater reliability for 82% of the individual items was good, according to the kappa values obtained. Internal consistency was excellent, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). The French-Canadian version of AMSTAR is a unidimensional tool, as confirmed by factor analysis and community values greater than 0.30. Conclusion: A valid French-Canadian version of AMSTAR was created using this rigorous five-step process. This version is unidimensional, with moderate inter-rater reliability for the elements overall, and with excellent internal consistency. This tool could be valuable to French-Canadian professionals and researchers, and could also be of interest to the international Francophone community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":390485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2015-80F\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2015-80F","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:主要目的是制作AMSTAR(一种评估系统评价的测量工具)的法加翻译,并检查翻译内容的有效性。第二和第三目的是评估这个法加版本的AMSTAR的评分者间信度和析因结构效度。方法:对Vallerand的方法(1989)进行修改,以进行跨文化验证首先,由专业人员和未来的专业人员对AMSTAR2进行平行反翻译。接下来,第一个专家委员会(P1)检查翻译,以创建AMSTAR工具的法语-加拿大版本的初稿。该草案随后由第二个专家委员会(P2)进行评估和修改。随后,18名未来的专业人士(物理治疗专业的硕士生)用7分制(1:非常清楚;7:非常暧昧)。最后,主要的共同调查人员审查了有问题的因素,并提出了最终的修改建议。四个独立的评级者使用这个法加版本的AMSTAR来评估2000年以后用法语发表的20篇系统评论。计算了类内相关系数(ICC)和kappa系数来衡量工具的类间可靠性。还计算了Cronbach’s alpha系数来衡量内部一致性。此外,采用因子分析评估构念效度,以确定构念的维度数。结果:AMSTAR工具最终版本的语句平均歧义评分在1.0到1.4之间。没有一份报告的平均评分低于1.4分,这表明清晰度很高。该仪器总分的评分间信度(n=4)为中等,类内相关系数为0.61(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.29, 0.97)。根据获得的kappa值,82%的个别项目的评估间信度良好。内部一致性极好,Cronbach's alpha系数为0.91 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.99)。因子分析和群落值均大于0.30证实,法加版AMSTAR是一个单向度工具。结论:采用严格的五步流程,建立了一个有效的法加版本的AMSTAR。这个版本是单维的,对元素整体来说具有中等的内部可靠性,并且具有出色的内部一致性。这个工具对法裔加拿大专业人员和研究人员很有价值,也可能对国际法语社区感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
La version franco-canadienne de l'outil Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)
Objectives: The primary objective was to produce a French-Canadian translation of AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) and to examine the validity of the translation's contents. The secondary and tertiary objectives were to assess the inter-rater reliability and factorial construct validity of this French-Canadian version of AMSTAR. Methods: A modified approach to Vallerand's methodology (1989) for cross-cultural validation was used.1 First, a parallel back-translation of AMSTAR2 was performed, by both professionals and future professionals. Next, a first committee of experts (P1) examined the translations to create a first draft of the French-Canadian version of the AMSTAR tool. This draft was then evaluated and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Following that, 18 future professionals (master's students in physiotherapy) rated this second draft of the instrument for clarity using a seven-point scale (1: very clear; 7: very ambiguous). Lastly, the principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed final changes. Four independent raters used this French-Canadian version of AMSTAR to assess 20 systematic reviews that were published in French after the year 2000. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa coefficient were calculated to measure the tool's inter-rater reliability. A Cronbach's alpha coefficient was also calculated to measure internal consistency. In addition, factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity in order to determine the number of dimensions. Results: The statements on the final version of the AMSTAR tool received an average ambiguity rating of between 1.0 and 1.4. No statement received an average rating below 1.4, which indicates a high level of clarity. Inter-rater reliability (n=4) for the instrument's total score was moderate, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.97). Inter-rater reliability for 82% of the individual items was good, according to the kappa values obtained. Internal consistency was excellent, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). The French-Canadian version of AMSTAR is a unidimensional tool, as confirmed by factor analysis and community values greater than 0.30. Conclusion: A valid French-Canadian version of AMSTAR was created using this rigorous five-step process. This version is unidimensional, with moderate inter-rater reliability for the elements overall, and with excellent internal consistency. This tool could be valuable to French-Canadian professionals and researchers, and could also be of interest to the international Francophone community.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信