Abstract
The increasing use of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in multinational studies has resulted in the translation of many existing measures. Guidelines for translation have been published, and there has been some discussion of how to achieve and assess equivalence between source and target questionnaires. Our reading in this area had led us, however, to the conclusion that different types of equivalence were not clearly defined, and that a theoretical framework for equivalence was lacking. To confirm this we reviewed definitions of equivalence in the HRQOL literature on the use of generic questionnaires in multicultural settings. The literature review revealed: definitions of 19 different types of equivalence; vague or conflicting definitions, particularly in the case of conceptual equivalence; and the use of many redundant terms. We discuss these findings in the light of a framework adapted from cross-cultural psychology for describing three different orientations to cross-cultural research: absolutism, universalism and relativism. We suggest that the HRQOL field has generally adopted an absolutist approach and that this may account for some of the confusion in this area. We conclude by suggesting that there is an urgent need for a standardized terminology within the HRQOL field, by offering a standard definition of conceptual equivalence, and by suggesting that the adoption of a universalist orientation would require substantial changes to guidelines and more empirical work on the conceptualization of HRQOL in different cultures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kuyken W, Orley J, eds. Quality of life assessment: Cross-cultural issues. Int J Ment Health 1994; 23:2-3.
Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
Shumaker S, Berzon R, eds. The International Assessment of Health-related Quality of Life: Theory, Translation, Measurement and Analysis. Oxford, UK: Rapid Communications, 1995.
Patrick DL, Wild DJ, Johnson ES, Wagner TH, Martin MA. Cross-cultural validation of quality of life measures. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 19-32.
Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. New York, NY (USA): Oxford University Press, 1993: 250-253.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol- A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208
Doward LC. Adaptation of QoL measures for use in other countries: meeting the needs of multi-centre, multi-country trials. Paper presented at the seminar Concepts and Methods in Quality of Life Research: European Perspectives. Lübeck, Germany, 1995.
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related QOL measures. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417-1432.
Meadows, K. Criteria for translation of health measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 67
Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Segall MH, Dasen PR. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Fox-Rushby J, Parker M. Culture and the measurement of health-related quality of life. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 1995; 45: 257-263.
Irvine SH, Berry JW, eds. Human Abilities in Cultural Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Hui CH, Triandis HC. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1985; 16: 131-152.
Hunt SM. Cross-cultural comparability of measures and other issues related to multicountry studies. Brit J Med Econ 1993; 6c: 27-34.
Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Leplège AP, Wilkin D. International use and application of generic health-related quality of life instruments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Second Edition.Philadelphia, PA (USA): Lippincott-Raven 1996: 613-632.
Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 369-395.
Bucquet D, Condon S, Ritchie K. The French version of the Nottingham Health Profile. A comparison of item weights with those of the source version. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 829-835.
Alonso J, Ant JM, Moreno C. Spanish version of the NHP: translation and preliminary validity. Am J Public Health 1990; 80: 704-708.
Mathias SD, Fifer SK, Patrick DL. Rapid translation of QoL measures for international clinical trials: avoiding errors in the minimalist approach. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 403-412.
Ware J, Keller S, Gandek B, Brazier JE, Sullivan M. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 1995; 11: 525-551.
Sartorius N, Kuyken W. Translation of health status instruments. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of LifeAssessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 3-18.
Hunt S, McKenna S. Cross-cultural comparability of QoL measures. Brit J Med Econ 1992: 4; 17-23.
Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments: From minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 451-459.
Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki DA. Psychometric evaluation of HRQOL data. In: Shumaker SA, Berzon R, eds. The International Assessment of Health-related Quality of Life: Theory, Translation, Measurement and Analysis. Oxford, UK: Rapid Communications, 1995: 103-114.
Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, McKenna S, Niero M, Wiklund I. Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991; 19: 33-44.
Leplège A, Verdier A. The adaptation of health status measures: methodological aspects of the translation procedure. In: Shumaker SA, Berzon R, eds. The International Assessment of Health-related Quality of Life: Theory, Translation, Measurement and Analysis. Oxford, UK: Rapid Communications, 1995: 93-101.
The Johns Hopkins University. Draft guidelines for Translation of the Sickness Impact Profile. Baltimore, MD (USA): The Johns Hopkins University, September 1995.
Ware J, Eller S, Bentler P, Sullivan M, Brazier J, Gandek B. Comparison of health status models and the validity of the SF-36 in Great Britain, Sweden and the USA. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 68.
Anderson RT, McFarlane M, Naughton MJ, Shumaker SA. Conceptual issues and considerations in cross-cultural validation of generic health-related quality of life instruments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Second Edition.Philadelphia, PA (USA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 605-612.
Hunt SM. Cross-cultural comparability of quality of life measures. Drug Info J 1993; 27: 395-400
Campbell DT. Natural selection as an epistemological model. In: Naroll R, Cohen R eds. A Handbook of Anthropological Method in Cultural Anthropology. New York, NY (USA): Natural History Press, 1970.
WHOQOL Group. The development of the WHO quality of life assessment instrument (The WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 41-60.
Fox-Rushby J, Mwenesi H, Parker M, Amuyunzu M, Egesah O, Johnson K, Allen T. Questioning premises: Health-related quality of life in Kenya. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 428-429.
Allen T, Parker M, Amuyunzu M, et al. Conceptions of health in quality of life research. Paper given at the 4th International Social Science Methodology Conference, Essex, UK, July 1996.
Hunt S, McKenna S, McEwen J. Measuring Health Status. M. Herdman et al. London, UK: Croon Helm, 1986.
Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Intern Med 1978; 88: 251-258
Kleinman A. Anthropology and Psychiatry: The role of culture in cross-cultural research on illness. Brit J Psychiat 1987; 151: 447-54.
Rogers W. Explaining Health and Illness: An Exploration of Diversity. New York, NY (USA): Harvester, 1991.
Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, Marquis P. Language and translation issues. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Second Edition. Philadelphia, PA (USA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 575-585.
Cella D, Lloyd SR, Wright B. Cross-cultural instrument equating: current research and future directions. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Second Edition. Philadelphia, PA (USA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 707-715.
Kohlmann T. Aggregation of quality of life data from different countries and interpretation of results. Brit JMed Econ 1993: 6c; 35-44.
Touw-Otten F, Meadows K. Cross-cultural issues in outcome measurement. In: Hutchinson A, McColl E, Christie M, Rittleton C, eds. Outcome Measurement in Primary and Out-Patient Care. Harwood Academic Publishers, 1996: 199-208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J. & Badia, X. ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Qual Life Res 6, 237–247 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026410721664
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026410721664