About
Scope & Aims
Editorial office
Editorial board
Reviewers
Ethical standards and procedures
Abstracting and indexing
Contact
Articles & Issues
Current issue
Articles in press
Archive
For Authors
General rules
Ethics in publishing
Guide for authors
Templates
Publication charge
For Reviewers
Our reviewers
Ethics in publishing
Guide for reviewers
Books and Events
Books
Events
ORIGINAL PAPER
Cross-cultural adaptation of the Arabic Version of the Disability Rating Scale among caregivers of patients with traumatic brain injury
1
General Administration of Health Affairs, Ministry of Health Department, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Physical Therapy and Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University,
Al Majmaah, Saudi Arabia
3
College of Applied Sciences, Almaarefa University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Medical Science, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, College of Physical Therapy, Zagazig University Hospital, Al-Sharqia Governorate, Egypt
6
Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia
7
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Sciences, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
8
College of Nursing, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah, Saudi Arabia
Submission date: 2022-10-07
Acceptance date: 2023-02-27
Publication date: 2024-06-21
Physiother Quart. 2024;32(2):54-61
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
he Disability Rating Scale (DRS) is a short, efficient, rapid instrument for monitoring general functional recovery from moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The 8-item DRS is a published and validated assessment instrument but has not yet been adapted to native Arabic-speaking caregivers of patients with TBI. This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and test the reliability of the Arabic version of the DRS.
Methods:
Cross-cultural adaptation and translation were performed according to the recommended guidelines: translation, back-translation, expert review, and pretesting. Reliability was assessed via a test-retest procedure at 2-week intervals using the Kappa coefficient among 42 caregivers of patients with TBI.
Results:
The agreement among the raters was excellent, varying from 0.88 to 1. Translating the DRS into Arabic was easy based on the translators’ information. The test-retest reliability was excellent (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.99 with a 95% CI 0.998 to 0.999 [F(41) = 1100.7, p < 0.001]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of the DRS was 0.917. There was good agreement (convergent validity) between the DRS scores with the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire [rs(42) = 0.895, p = 0.001].
Conclusions:
The Arabic version of the DRS can be used among Arabic-speaking caregivers of patients with TBI. The Arabic translated version of the DRS can be used among caregivers of patients with TBI telephonically by expert professional. The translated questionnaire was easy to comprehend among caregivers of patients with TBI, with excellent test re-test reliability and good convergent validity.
he Disability Rating Scale (DRS) is a short, efficient, rapid instrument for monitoring general functional recovery from moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The 8-item DRS is a published and validated assessment instrument but has not yet been adapted to native Arabic-speaking caregivers of patients with TBI. This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and test the reliability of the Arabic version of the DRS.
Methods:
Cross-cultural adaptation and translation were performed according to the recommended guidelines: translation, back-translation, expert review, and pretesting. Reliability was assessed via a test-retest procedure at 2-week intervals using the Kappa coefficient among 42 caregivers of patients with TBI.
Results:
The agreement among the raters was excellent, varying from 0.88 to 1. Translating the DRS into Arabic was easy based on the translators’ information. The test-retest reliability was excellent (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.99 with a 95% CI 0.998 to 0.999 [F(41) = 1100.7, p < 0.001]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of the DRS was 0.917. There was good agreement (convergent validity) between the DRS scores with the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire [rs(42) = 0.895, p = 0.001].
Conclusions:
The Arabic version of the DRS can be used among Arabic-speaking caregivers of patients with TBI. The Arabic translated version of the DRS can be used among caregivers of patients with TBI telephonically by expert professional. The translated questionnaire was easy to comprehend among caregivers of patients with TBI, with excellent test re-test reliability and good convergent validity.
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Roozenbeek B, Maas AIR, Menon DK. Changing patterns in the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury. Nat Rev Neurol. 2013;9(4):231–6; doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2013.22.
2.
DeGrauw X, Thurman D, Xu L, Kancherla V, DeGrauw T. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury-associated epilepsy and early use of anti-epilepsy drugs: an analysis of insurance claims data, 2004–2014. Epilepsy Res. 2018;146:41–9; doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.07.012.
3.
Dewan MC, Rattani A, Gupta S, Baticulon RE, Hung Y-C, Punchak M, Agrawal A, Adeleye AO, Shrime MG, Rubiano AM. Estimating the global incidence of traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(4):1080–97; doi: 10.3171/2017.10. JNS17352.
4.
El-Menyar A, Mekkodathil A, Al-Thani H, Consunji R, Latifi R. Incidence, demographics, and outcome of traumatic brain injury in the Middle East: a systematic review. World Neurosurg. 2017;107:6–21; doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.070.
5.
Arabi YM, Haddad S, Tamim HM, Al-Dawood A, Al-Qahtani S, Ferayan A, Al-Abdulmughni I, Al-Oweis J, Rugaan A. Mortality reduction after implementing a clinical practice guidelines–based management protocol for severe traumatic brain injury. J Crit Care. 2010;25(2):190–5; doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.05.004.
6.
Alghnam S, Alkelya M, Aldahnim M, Aljerian N, Albabtain I, Alsayari A, Da’ar OB, Alsheikh K, Alghamdi A. Healthcare costs of road injuries in Saudi Arabia: a quantile regression analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2021;159:106266; doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106266.
7.
Mirhosseini S, Bazghaleh M, Basirinezhad MH, Abbasi A, Ebrahimi H. Health-related quality of life and caregiver’s burden in patients with chronic diseases: a cross-sectional study. Fam Med Prim Care Rev. 2021;23(1):29–35; doi: 10.5114/fmpcr.2021.103184.
8.
Amri MI, Alzhrani MM, Alanazi AD, Alqahtani MM, Kashoo FZ. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the foot function index in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability. J Foot Ankle Res. 2022;15(1):21; doi: 10.1186/s13047-022-00527-6.
9.
Al Sayah F, Ishaque S, Lau D, Johnson JA. Health related quality of life measures in Arabic speaking populations: a systematic review on cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(1):213–29; doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0129-3.
10.
Neese LE, Caroselli JS, Klaas P, High WM, Becker LJ, Scheibel RS. Neuropsychological assessment and the Disability Rating Scale (DRS): a concurrent validity study. Brain Inj. 2000;14(8):719–24; doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0129-3.
11.
Gouvier WD, Blanton PD, LaPorte KK, Nepomuceno C. Reliability and validity of the Disability Rating Scale and the Levels of Cognitive Functioning Scale in monitoring recovery from severe head injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987;68(2):94–7.
12.
Eliason MR, Topp BW. Predictive validity of Rappaport’s Disability Rating Scale in subjects with acute brain dysfunction. Phys Ther. 1984;64(9):1357–60; doi: 10.1093/ptj/64.9.1357.
13.
Shames J, Treger I, Ring H, Giaquinto S. Return to work following traumatic brain injury: trends and challenges. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(17):1387–95; doi: 10.1080/09638280701315011.
14.
Aloyuni S, Alharbi R, Kashoo F, Alqahtani M, Alanazi A, Alzhrani M, Ahmad M. Knowledge, attitude, and barriers to telerehabilitation-based physical therapy practice in Saudi Arabia. Healthcare. 2020;8(4):460; doi: 10.3390/healthcare8040460.
15.
Malec JF, Hammond FM, Giacino JT, Whyte J, Wright J. Structured interview to improve the reliability and psychometric integrity of the Disability Rating Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(9):1603–8; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.003.
16.
Rappaport M, Hall KM, Hopkins K, Belleza T, Cope DN. Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63(3):118–23.
17.
Malec JF, Thompson JM. Relationship of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory to functional outcome and cognitive performance measures. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1994;9(4):1–15; doi: 10.1097/00001199-199412000-00003.
18.
Boake C. Supervision Rating Scale: a measure of functional outcome from brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(8):765–72; doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90254-3.
19.
Turcotte S, Beaudoin M, Vallée C, Vincent C, Routhier F. Psychometric properties of the Community Integration Questionnaire: a systematic review of five populations. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2019;33(11):1775–87; doi: 10.1177/0269215519867998.
20.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91.
21.
DeMuro CJ, Lewis SA, DiBenedetti DB, Price MA, Fehnel SE. Successful implementation of cognitive interviews in special populations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(2):181–7; doi: 10.1586/erp.11.103.
22.
Alsudais A, Alotaibi W, Alomary F. Similarities between Arabic dialects: investigating geographical proximity. Inf Process Manag. 2022;59(1):102770; doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102770.
23.
Bogner JA, Whiteneck GG, MacDonald J, Juengst SB, Brown AW, Philippus AM, Marwitz JH, Lengenfelder J, Mellick D, Arenth P. Test-retest reliability of traumatic brain injury outcome measures: a traumatic brain injury model systems study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017;32(5):1–16; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000291.
24.
Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42; doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
25.
van Baalen B, Odding E, van Woensel MPC, van Kessel MA, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJ. Reliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(8):686–700; doi: 10.1191/0269215506cre982oa.
26.
Coons SJ, Alabdulmohsin SA, Draugalis JR, Hays RD. Reliability of an Arabic version of the RAND-36 Health Survey and its equivalence to the US-English version. Med Care. 1998;428–32.
27.
Van Rosse F, de Bruijne M, Suurmond J, Essink-Bot M-L, Wagner C. Language barriers and patient safety risks in hospital care: a mixed methods study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:45–53; doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.012.
28.
Al-Amer R, Ramjan L, Glew P, Darwish M, Salamonson Y. Language translation challenges with Arabic speakers participating in qualitative research studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:150–7; doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.04.010.
29.
Ezzati K, Yousefzadeh-Chabok S, Rezaei S, Reihanian Z. Translation, validity, and reliability of Disability Rating Scale in Iranian patients with traumatic brain injury. Arch Trauma Res. 2020;9(4):167.
30.
Krch D, Lequerica AH. The factor structure of the Disability Rating Scale in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(1):98–103; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1378388.
31.
Novack TA, Bergquist TF, Bennett G, Gouvier WD. Primary caregiver distress following severe head injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1991;6(4): 69–76.
32.
Temkin NR, Corrigan JD, Dikmen SS, Machamer J. Social functioning after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2009;24(6):460–7; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181c13413.
33.
Cantor JB, Ashman T, Gordon W, Ginsberg A, Engmann C, Egan M, Spielman L, Dijkers M, Flanagan S. Fatigue after traumatic brain injury and its impact on participation and quality of life. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2008;23(1):41–51; doi: 10.1097/01.HTR.0000308720.70288.af.
34.
Yamal J-M, Aisiku IP, Hannay HJ, Brito FA, Robertson CS. Disability rating scale in the first few weeks after a severe traumatic brain injury as a predictor of 6-month functional outcome. Neurosurgery. 2021;88(3):619–26; doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyaa474.
35.
Hall K, Cope DN, Rappaport M. Glasgow Outcome Scale and Disability Rating Scale: comparative usefulness in following recovery in traumatic head injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66(1):35–7.
36.
Hammond FM, Grattan KD, Sasser H, Corrigan JD, Bushnik T, Zafonte RD. Long-term recovery course after traumatic brain injury: a comparison of the functional independence measure and disability rating scale. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001;16(4):318–29.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
