Search

Objective: To evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS V2) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) scale in six countries., Methods: We surveyed RA patients in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, including the HAQ, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and potential revisions of the BRAF-NRS coping and Spanish RAID coping items. Factor structure and internal consistency were examined by factor analysis and Cronbach's α and construct validity by Spearman's correlation., Results: A total of 1276 patients participated (76% female, 25% with a disease duration <5 years, median HAQ 1.0). The original BRAF-MDQ four-factor structure and RAID single-factor structure were confirmed in every country with ⩾66% of variation in items explained by each factor and all item factor loadings of 0.71-0.98. Internal consistency for the BRAF-MDQ total and subscales was a Cronbach's α of 0.75-0.96 and for RAID, 0.93-0.96. Fatigue construct validity was shown for the BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS severity and effect scales, correlated internally with SF-36 vitality and with RAID fatigue (r = 0.63-0.93). Broader construct validity for the BRAFs and RAID was shown by correlation with each other, HAQ and SF-36 domains (r = 0.46-0.82), with similar patterns in individual countries. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 Coping item had stronger validity than the original in all analyses. The revised Spanish RAID coping item performed as well as the original., Conclusion: Across six European countries, the BRAF-MDQ identifies the same four aspects of fatigue, and along with the RAID, shows strong factor structure and internal consistency and moderate-good construct validity. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 shows improved construct validity and replaces the original., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: Cross-cultural translation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a lengthy process, often performed professionally. Cognitive interviewing assesses patient comprehension of PROMs. The objective was to evaluate the usefulness of cognitive interviewing to assess translations and compare professional (full) with non-professional (simplified) translation processes., Methods: A full protocol used for the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-dimensional Questionnaire and Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-MDQ, BRAF-NRS) was compared with a simplified protocol used for the RA Impact of Disease scale (RAID). RA patients in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Sweden completed the PROMs during cognitive interviewing (BRAFs in the UK were omitted as these were performed during development). Transcripts were deductively analysed for understanding, information retrieval, judgement and response options. Usefulness of cognitive interviewing was assessed by the nature of problems identified, and translation processes by percentage of consistently problematic items (⩾40% patients per country with similar concerns)., Results: Sixty patients participated (72% women). For the BRAFs (full protocol) one problematic item was identified (of 23 items × 5 languages, 1/115 = 0.9%). For the RAID (simplified protocol) two problematic items were identified (of 7 items × 6 languages, 2/42 = 4.8%), of which one was revised (Dutch). Coping questions were problematic in both PROMs., Conclusion: Conceptual and cultural challenges though rare were important, as identified by formal evaluation, demonstrating that cognitive interviewing is crucial in PROM translations. Proportionately fewer problematic items were found for the full than for the simplified translation procedure, suggesting that while both are acceptable, professional PROM translation might be preferable. Coping may be a particularly challenging notion cross-culturally., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)