Search

Purpose: The main purpose is to produce a French-Canadian translation of the "STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology" (STROBE) Statement under the proposed name of "outil STROBE" and to assess the cross-cultural validity of its content. The secondary purpose is to examine its preliminary interrater reliability. Method: A modified approach to Vallerand's cross-cultural validation methodology was used. First, professional translators and clinical practitioners produced a parallel reverse translation of the "STROBE Statement." Then, a committee of experts (P1) examined the translated versions and created a first experimental draft of the "outil STROBE." This draft was assessed and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Finally, 32 future professionals doing their master's degree in physiotherapy and occupational therapy assessed this second experimental version of the tool using an ambiguity scale of 8 points (0 meaning "not at all ambiguous" and 7 meaning "extremely ambiguous"). The main co-researchers examined the problematic elements and proposed final modifications. Ten observational studies published in French after 1980 were assessed by two independent raters using the French-Canadian version of the "outil STROBE." The kappa coefficient was used to examine interrater reliability. Results: For the different elements of the final version of the "outil STROBE," the averages on the ambiguity scale varied from 0.0 to 2.4. No element received an average below 2.4, which showed a high level of clarity. The interrater reliability ( n = 2) for the "outil STROBE" is thought to be good for 74% of individual elements, according to the kappa coefficient values obtained. Conclusions: The process's five rigorous steps enabled the production of a valid French-Canadian version of the "STROBE Statement.", Competing Interests: Conflits d’intérêts : Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.

Purpose: The main purpose of this article is to produce a French-Canadian translation of the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) scale under the proposed name "échelle COREQ" and to assess the transcultural validity of its content. The secondary purpose is to examine the inter-rater reliability of the French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale. Method: A modified approach to Vallerand's methodology (1989) for cross-cultural validation was used. First, a parallel back-translation of the COREQ scale was performed, by both professionals and clinicians. Next, a first committee of experts(P1) examined the translations to create a first draft of the French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale. This draft was then evaluated and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Finally, 28future professionals (master's students in physiotherapy) rated this second draft of the tool for clarity using a seven-point scale (1:very clear; 7:very ambiguous). The principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed final changes. Two independent raters used this French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale to assess 13qualitative studies that were published in French after the year2007. The kappa coefficient was used to examine inter-rate reliability. Results: The different elements of the final version of the COREQ scale received an average ambiguity rating between 1.04 and 2.56. These low values show a high level of clarity for the French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale. In relation to the total score of the COREQ scale, inter-rater reliability ( n  = 2) is considered to be average to excellent for 62.5% of individual elements, according to the kappa values obtained. Conclusions: A valid French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale was created using this rigorous five-step process., (© Canadian Physiotherapy Association.)

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 AMSTAR 2 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.

Purpose: To prepare a Canadian French translation of the PEDro Scale under the proposed name l'Échelle PEDro, and to examine the validity of its content., Methods: A modified approach of Vallerand's cross-cultural validation methodology was used, beginning with a parallel back-translation of the PEDro scale by both professional translators and clinical researchers. These versions were reviewed by an initial panel of experts (P1), who then created the first experimental version of l'Échelle PEDro. This version was evaluated by a second panel of experts (P2). Finally, 32 clinical researchers evaluated the second experimental version of l'Échelle PEDro, using a 5-point clarity scale, and suggested final modifications., Results: The various items on the final version of l'Échelle PEDro show a high degree of clarity (from 4.0 to 4.7 on the 5-point scale)., Conclusion: The four rigorous steps of the translation process have produced a valid Canadian French version of the PEDro scale.