METHODS: The forward-backward and dual-panel versions of HeartQoL were self-administered among 60 participants who met the inclusion criteria of being a native Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Malay, aged 18 and older, having an indexed diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease and being cognitively fit. The administration sequence of the two versions was randomized. Additionally, three sociolinguists, who were blinded to translation processes and survey findings, rated the translated versions against the source version on three aspects of semantic equivalence.
RESULTS: Textual content in both translated versions was considerably similar (n = 9/14 items, ≈64%). The overall results from weighted kappa, raw agreement, intraclass correlations, and Wilcoxon signed-rank as well as experts' ratings were confirmative of semantic equivalence between the forward-backward and dual-panel versions of the HeartQoL. However, some mixed findings were indicative of potential gaps in both translated versions against the source version.
CONCLUSION: Both the forward-backward and dual-panel methods produced semantically equivalent versions of HeartQoL; but translation alone is insufficient to narrow the subtle gaps caused by differences in culture and linguistic style.
METHODS: Permission was obtained to translate the English versions into Malay and subsequently validate them, and to validate the existing Chinese versions. The translated questionnaires were taken for pilot testing. Validation was carried out for the face/content and discriminant validity. Reliability was assessed for test-retest and internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient respectively. The responsiveness was calculated via effect size and standardized response mean.
RESULTS: Ten patients were recruited for the pilot testing. The English and Chinese versions had "substantial" or "almost perfect" agreement as measured by weighted Kappa. 284 participants (139 patients with stress urinary incontinence and 145 healthy volunteers) were included in the subsequent phases. The ICIQ-UI SF and ICIQ-LUTSqol had good discriminant validity. The ICIQ-UI SF had moderate internal consistency although the ICIQ-LUTSqol had good internal consistency. Both questionnaires had high test-retest reliability. Responsiveness was established with a moderate to large effect size and a standardized response mean.
CONCLUSIONS: The English, Chinese, and Malay versions each proved to be valid and reliable in our Malaysian population, thereby enabling more cross-cultural research in this region. Neurourol. Neurourol. Urodynam. 36:438-442, 2017. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to translate and validate (with cross-cultural adaptation) the English System Usability Scale questionnaire into Malay, the main language spoken in Malaysia. The development of a translated version will allow the usability of mobile apps to be assessed in Malay.
METHODS: Forward and backward translation of the questionnaire was conducted by groups of Malay native speakers who spoke English as their second language. The final version was obtained after reconciliation and cross-cultural adaptation. The content of the Malay System Usability Scale questionnaire for mobile apps was validated by 10 experts in mobile app development. The efficacy of the questionnaire was further probed by testing the face validity on 10 mobile phone users, followed by reliability testing involving 54 mobile phone users.
RESULTS: The content validity index was determined to be 0.91, indicating good relevancy of the 10 items used to assess the usability of a mobile app. Calculation of the face validity index resulted in a value of 0.94, therefore indicating that the questionnaire was easily understood by the users. Reliability testing showed a Cronbach alpha value of .85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91) indicating that the translated System Usability Scale questionnaire is a reliable tool for the assessment of usability of a mobile app.
CONCLUSIONS: The Malay System Usability Scale questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool to assess the usability of mobile app in Malaysia.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional validation study among 159 T2DM patients attending a public primary care clinic in Selangor. The DMOQ English version underwent adaptation, translation, face validation and field testing to produce the Malay version. Psychometric analysis was performed using Exploratory Factor Analysis, internal consistency and testretest reliability.
RESULTS: The DMOQ domains were conceptually equivalent between English and Malay language. A total of 13 items and two domains were removed during the validation process (three items during the content validation, three items due to poor factor loadings, five items as they loaded onto two domains which were not interpretable, one item as it did not fit conceptually into the factor it loaded onto and one openended question as it did not fit into the retained domains). Therefore, the final DMOQ Malay version consisted of 21- items within five domains. The Cronbach alpha was 0.714 and the intraclass-correlation coefficient was 0.868.
CONCLUSION: The DMOQ Malay version is a valid and reliable tool which is consistent over time. It can be used to examine the perception of T2DM patients towards the risk of their offspring developing diabetes and possibility of intervention in Malay-speaking patients.
METHODS: We analysed data from the previously published, cross-sectional, WONDERS study and used linear regression models to adjust for potential confounding variables. Based on equivalence clinical trial methods, measurement equivalence was assessed by comparing 90% confidence interval (CI) of differences in scores across language versions with a predefined equivalence margin of 0.3 SD. Equivalence was achieved if the 90% CI fell within 0.3 SD. Data from 1203 participants, aged above 21 years, were analysed.
RESULTS: Participants who completed the different language versions of WHOQOL-BREF expectedly differed in age, ethnicity, highest education level, marital status, smoking status and Body Mass Index (BMI). The English and Malay language versions were definitely equivalent for all domains. The English and Chinese language versions were definitely equivalent for physical and environmental domains but inconclusive for psychological and social domains. Likewise, for Chinese and Malay versions.
CONCLUSION: The English, Chinese and Malay language versions of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire may be considered equivalent, with evidence being more robust for some domains than the others. Given the large number of people who speak/ read Chinese and Malay, this study has widespread relevance.
METHODS: The original HCAPHS in English was translated into Malay based on the established guideline. The content validation involved an expert panel of 10 members, including patients. The face validation pilot testing of the HCAHPS-Malay version was conducted among 10 discharged patients. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) used principal axis factor, and varimax rotation was established based on a cross-sectional study conducted among 200 discharged patients from Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (Hospital USM).
RESULTS: The overall content validity index was 0.87, and the universal face validity index was 0.82. From the EFA, the factor loading value ranged from 0.652 to 0.961 within nine domains. The internal consistency reliability with Cronbach's alpha was 0.844.
CONCLUSION: The HCAHPS-Malay is a reliable and valid tool to determine patients' perception of healthcare services among inpatients in Hospital USM based on the content and face validation result together with a good construct validity and excellent absolute reliability. Further testing on HCAHPS-Malay version in other settings in Malaysia needs to be done for cross-validation.
METHODS: The translation of the English version of the valid 10-item TAI questionnaire into BM was followed by subjecting it to a series of tests establishing factorial, concurrent and known group validities. Concurrent validity was assessed through Spearman's rank correlation coefficient against pharmacy refill-based adherence scores. Known group validity was assessed by cross-tabulation against asthma symptom control and using chi-square test. The internal consistency of the test scale was determined by a test-retest method using Cronbach's alpha (α) value and intraclass correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: A total of 120 adult asthma patients participated in the study. A 2-factor structure was obtained and confirmed with acceptable fit indices; CFI, NFI, IFI, TLI >0.9 and, RMSEA was 0.08. The reliability of the scale was 0.871. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the total sum score was 0.832 (p 85%.
CONCLUSIONS: The scale successfully translated into BM and validated. The 10-item TAI-BM appears fit for use in testing inhaler adherence of Malaysian patients with asthma.
METHODS: Participants were 997 university undergraduate students, with a mean age of 21 years (SD = 1.58). The majority of the participants (80.4%) were female. Health-promoting behaviour was assessed using the 52-item HPLP-II, which measures six components of health-promoting behaviour outcomes. HPLP-II was translated into the Malay language using standard forward and backward translation procedures. Participants then completed the HPLP-II Malay version (HPLP-II-M). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus 8.0 software on the six domains of HPLP-II-M model.
RESULTS: The CFA result based on the hypothesised measurement model of six factors was aligned with the original HPLP-II, except for two low loading items which were subsequently removed from the CFA analysis. The final CFA measurement model with 50 items resulted in a good fit to the data based on RMSEA and SRMR fit indices (RMSEA = 0.046, 90%CI = 0.045, 0.048, SRMR = 0.062). The construct reliabilities for the HPLP-II-M subscales were acceptable, ranging from 0.737 to 0.878.
CONCLUSION: The HPLP-II-M with six components of health-promoting behaviour outcomes and 50 items was considered valid and reliable for the present Malaysian sample.