Links & Downloads
Rev. Bras. Fisioter. 2016; 20: 561-570
10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0166 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0166
Abstract:Background: The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory-Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT), developed with innovative measurement methodologies, evaluates functioning of children and youth, from 0 to 21 years, with different health conditions. It is a revision of an earlier instrument (PEDI) that has been used in national and international clinical practice and research. It was felt to be necessary to make this new version (PEDI-CAT) available in Brazil. Objectives: Translate and culturally adapt the PEDI-CAT to the Brazilian-Portuguese language and test its psychometric properties. Method: This methodological study was developed through the following stages: (1) translation, (2) synthesis, (3) back-translation, (4) revision by an expert committee, (5) testing of the pre-final version, and (6) evaluation of the psychometric properties. The 276 translated PEDI-CAT items were divided into three age groups (0-7, 8-14, and 15-21 years). Results: The PEDI-CAT translation followed all six stages. The adaptations incorporated cultural and socioeconomic class specificities. The PEDI-CAT/Brazil showed good indices of inter-examiner (intraclass correlation coefficient-ICC=0.83-0.89) and test-retest (ICC=0.96-0.97) reliability, good internal consistency (0.99) and small standard error of measurement in all three age groups (0.12-0.17). Factor analyses grouped the items from the three functional skills domains into one factor, and items from the responsibility scale into three factors, supporting the adequacy of these factor solutions to the conceptual structure of the instrument and the developmental model. Conclusion: The PEDI-CAT/Brazil is a theoretically consistent, culturally appropriate, and reliable instrument. Its availability in Brazil will contribute to the evaluation and measurement of functional outcomes from clinical interventions, longitudinal follow-up, and rehabilitation research.
Keywords:assessment, functioning, translation, cultural adaptation, psychometric properties, rehabilitation.
1. Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Marcondes FB, Lodovichi SS, Mello W, Grossi DB. The Brazilian version of STarT Back Screening Tool - translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18(5):453-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0028. PMid:25372008.
2. Lamarão AM, Costa LCM, Comper MLC, Padula RS. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian-Portuguese and reliability analysis of the instrument Rapid Entire Body Assessment-REBA. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18(3):211-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0035. PMid:25003273.
3. Furtado SRC, Sampaio RF, Vaz DV, Pinho BAS, Nascimento IO, Mancini MC. Brazilian version of the instrument of environmental assessment Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF): translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18(3):259-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0036. PMid:25003279.
4. Lopes AR, Trelha CS. Translation, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Falls Risk Awareness Questionnaire (FRAQ): FRAQ-Brazil. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013;17(6):593-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012005000128. PMid:24346294.
5. Pereira LM, Dias JM, Mazuquin BF, Castanhas LG, Menacho MO, Cardoso JR. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and analysis of the psychometric properties of the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): LEFS- BRAZIL. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013;17(3):272-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012005000091. PMid:23966144.
6. Amaral MF, Paula RL, Drummond A, Dunn L, Mancini MC. Translation of the Children Helping Out: Responsibilities, Expectations and Supports (CHORES) questionnaire into Brazilian-Portuguese: semantic, idiomatic, conceptual and experiential equivalences and application in normal children and adolescents and in children with cerebral palsy. Braz J Phys Ther. 2012;16(6):515-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012000600011. PMid:23348598.
7. Puga VOO, Lopes AD, Costa LOP. Assessment of cross-cultural adaptations and measurement properties of self-report outcome measures relevant to shoulder disability in Portuguese: a systematic review. Braz J Phys Ther. 2012;16(2):85-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012005000012. PMid:22588123.
8. Maher CG, Latimer J, Costa LOP. The relevance of cross-cultural adaptation and clinimetrics for Physical Therapy instruments. Braz J Phys Ther. 2007;11(4):245-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552007000400002.
9. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
10. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N. PMid:8263569.
11. Van Widenfelt BM, Treffers PDA, Beurs E, Siebelink BM, Koudijs E. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2005;8(2):135-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1. PMid:15981582.
12. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HC, Terwee CB. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurements INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measure instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143. PMid:26786084.
13. Coster WJ, Mancini MC. Recommendations for translations and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Rev Ter Ocup Univ São Paulo. 2015;26(1):50-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-6149.v26i1p50-57.
14. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Dumas HM, Fragala-Pinkham MA, Moed R. PEDI-CAT: development, standardization and administration manual. Boston: Boston University; 2012.
15. World Health Organization – WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Genebra: WHO; 2001.
16. World Health Organization – WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health children and youth version. Genebra: WHO; 2007.
17. Rogoff B. Developmental transitions in children’s participation in sociocultural activities. In: Sameroff A, Haith MM. The five to seven year shift: the age of reason and responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago; 1996.
18. Rogoff B. Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
19. Ayala RJ. The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: The Guilford Press; 2009.
20. Chang W, Chan C. Rasch analysis for outcome measures: some methodological considerations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(10):934-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80070-0. PMid:7487434.
21. Dumas HM, Fragala-Pinkham MA, Haley SM, Ni P, Coster W, Kramer JM, et al. Computer adaptive test performance in children with and without disabilities: prospective field study of the PEDI-CAT. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(5):393-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.607217. PMid:21988750.
22. Kao YC, Kramer JM, Liljenquist K, Tian F, Coster WJ. Comparing the functional performance of children and youths with autism, developmental disabilities, and no disability using the revised pediatric evaluation of disability inventory item banks. Am J Occup Ther. 2012;66(5):607-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004218. PMid:22917127.
23. Kramer JM, Coster WJ, Kao YC, Snow A, Orsmond GI. A new approach to the measurement of adaptive behavior: development of the PEDI-CAT for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2012;32(1):34-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2011.606260. PMid:21846290.
24. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test – PEDI-CAT. Information about the PEDI-CAT (English version) [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 8]. Available from: http://pedicat.com/category/home/
25. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa – ABEP. A ABEP: Critério Brasil [Brazilian Market Research Association] [Internet]. São Paulo: ABEP; 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 8]. Available from: http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil
26. Ciconelli RM, Ferraz MB, Santos W, Meinão I, Quaresma MR. Brazilian-Portuguese version of the SF-36: a reliable and valid quality of life outcome measure. Rev Bras Reumatol. 1999;39(3):143-50.
27. Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, Goldenberg J. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34(2):203-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2001000200007. PMid:11175495.
28. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory. 1994;3:248-92.
29. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2000. v. 2.
30. Lexell JE, Downham DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(9):719-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000176452.17771.20. PMid:16141752.
31. Hair JR, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.
32. Mancini MC. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI): manual of the Brazilian adapted version. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG; 2005. In Portuguese.