Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation.

By D. Wild, A. Grove, Mona Martin, S. Eremenco, S. McElroy, A. Verjee-Lorenz, Pennifer Erikson. Value in Health, 2005

4,937 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension (2018, methodology): “been translated and culturally adapted where needed using appropriate methodology.(11,30) This may influence the selection of mea-”
Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. (2008, methodology): “ISPOR Task Force for translation and cultural adaptation, although the methods under review do not overlap [ 57 ].”
Assessing the use of back translation: the shortcomings of back translation as a quality testing method (2017, background): “…disciplines, that list back translation as one of the recommended assessment methods (many of these guidelines are nicely summarized in Acquadro, Conway, Hareendran, & Aaronson, 2008; see also Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Bosi Ferraz, 2000; Maneesriwongul & Dixon, 2004; Wild et al., 2005).”
ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research (2013, methodology): “To be able to compare or combine HRQOL results across those groups, it is critical that the measured HRQOL concept and the wording of the questionnaire used to measure it is interpreted in the same way across translations [29, 46].”