Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of scales and measurement instruments in the health sciences
Keywords:
Psychometrics, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Validation Studies as Topic, Surveys and QuestionnairesArticle Sidebar
Main Article Content
With this editorial comment, I begin my role as the new Editor-in-Chief of Colombia Médica, the scientific journal of Universidad del Valle in Cali, Colombia. I thank the editorial committees and Universidad del Valle for the opportunity to lead our health sciences journal. In this editorial, I wish to address the conceptual and methodological implications of using scales and measurement instruments in the health sciences, as this is a recurring issue in the manuscripts submitted by authors. Nosologies are excluded from this discussion, for example, the Rome IV criteria for the diagnosis of functional (intestinal) constipation and the various criteria included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5).
The term “scale” in the health sciences is applied to two different approaches, each with its own specific purposes and methodologies: 1) prediction scales and 2) measurement scales and instruments. Clinical prediction scales are used to estimate, using statistical regression models, the probability of a health event occurring based on a set of predictor variables. These health events or outcomes may already be present when the predictor variables are observed, as in diagnostic prediction scales, or may occur in the future, as in prognostic scales.
Based on this conceptualization, there is no reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of the health event under study (e.g., hospital-acquired infection, coronary heart disease, or death), because these events have valid diagnostic criteria and diagnostic methods based on reference standards or gold standards5,6. Thus, when reference standards are available, diagnostic methods undergo validation processes that assess sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and reproducibility. With this conceptual and methodological clarification, this editorial comment will henceforth focus exclusively on measurement scales and instruments.
Carlos Andrés Fandiño Losada, Universidad del Valle
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3385-7380
Editor en jefe
Revista Colombia Médica
1. The Rome Foundation Rome IV criteria. Raleigh: The Rome Foundation. Available from: https://theromefoundation.org/rome-iv/rome-iv-criteria/
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
3. Efthimiou O, Seo M, Chalkou K, Debray T, Egger M, Salanti G. Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide. BMJ. 2024;386:e078276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078276 PMid:39227063 PMCid:PMC11369751
4. van Smeden M, Reitsma JB, Riley RD, Collins GS, Moons KG. Clinical prediction models: diagnosis versus prognosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;132:142-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.009 PMid:33775387 PMCid:PMC8964103
5. Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KGM, editors. Prognosis research in healthcare: concepts, methods, and impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198796619.001.0001
6. Ferket BS, van Kempen BJ, Hunink MG, Agarwal I, Kavousi M, Franco OH, et al. Predictive value of updating Framingham risk scores with novel risk markers in the U.S. general population. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088312 PMid:24558385 PMCid:PMC3928195
7. Zhou XH, McClish DK, Obuchowski NA. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2009.
8. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780192869487.001.0001
9. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: theory and applications. 5. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 2022.
10. Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61-68. https://doi.org/10.4137/HSI.S11093 PMid:25114561 PMCid:PMC4089835
11. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 PMid:29942800
12. Rosellini AJ, Brown TA. Developing and validating clinical questionnaires. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2021;17:55-81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-115343 PMid:33561365
13. Swan K, Speyer R, Scharitzer M, Farneti D, Brown T, Woisard V, et al. Measuring what matters in healthcare: a practical guide to psychometric principles and instrument development. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1225850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1225850 PMid:37790221 PMCid:PMC10543275
14. Stefana A, Damiani S, Granziol U, Provenzani U, Solmi M, Youngstrom EA, et al. Psychological, psychiatric, and behavioral sciences measurement scales: best practice guidelines for their development and validation. Front Psychol. 2025;15:1494261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1494261 PMid:39916786 PMCid:PMC11798685
15. Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW. Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales: professional manual. Lutz (FL): Psychological Assessment Resources; 2003.
16. Tellegen P, Laros JA. SON-R 6-40: Snijders-Oomen niet-verbale intelligentietest. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag; 2011. Available from: https://www.hogrefe.com/nl/shop/media/downloads/sample-reports/400139901_InkijkexemplaarHandleiding_Samplepages.pdf
17. Grob A, Hagmann-von Arx P. Intelligence and Development Scales-2nd Edition (IDS-2) Oxford: Hogrefe; 2018.
18. Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 2003. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15174-000
19. Cattell RB, Weiß RH. Cattell's Fluid Intelligence Test, Scale 2 (CFT 20-R) Oxford: Hogrefe; 2018.
20. Hagmann-von Arx P, Lemola S, Grob A. Does IQ = IQ? Comparability of intelligence test scores in typically developing children. Assessment. 2018;25(6):691-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116662911 PMid:27497247
21. Tsuang MT, Tohen M, Jones PB, editors. Textbook of psychiatric epidemiology. 3. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470976739
22. Cruchinho P, López-Franco MD, Capelas ML, Almeida S, Bennett PM, Miranda da Silva M, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: a practical guideline for novice researchers. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024;17:2701-2728. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714 PMid:38840704 PMCid:PMC11151507
23. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2(7872):81-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0 PMid:4136544 PMCid:PMC11893989
24. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x PMid:15817019
25. Gil L, Ruiz de Sánchez C, Gil F, Romero SJ, Pretelt BF. Validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in Spanish as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia in patients over 65 years old in Bogotá, Colombia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;30(6):655-662. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4199 PMid:25320026
26. Santaella-Tenorio J, Bonilla-Escobar FJ, Nieto-Gil L, Fandiño-Losada A, Gutiérrez-Martínez MI, Bass J, et al. Mental Health and psychosocial problems and needs of violence survivors in the Colombian Pacific Coast: a qualitative study in Buenaventura and Quibdó Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(6):567-574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X18000523 PMid:30047356
27. Bonilla-Escobar FJ, Fandiño-Losada A, Martínez-Buitrago DM, Santaella-Tenorio J, Tobón-García D, Muñoz-Morales EJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral intervention for Afro-descendants' survivors of systemic violence in Colombia. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208483 PMid:30532155 PMCid:PMC6287825
28. Lloret-Segura S, Ferreres-Traver A, Hernández-Baeza A, Tomás-Marco I. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. An. Psicol. 2014;30(3):1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
29. Baglin J. Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: a demonstration using FACTOR. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2014;19(5):1-15. https://doi.org/10.7275/dsep-4220
30. Rogers P. Best practices for your confirmatory factor analysis: A JASP and lavaan tutorial. Behav Res Methods. 2024;56(7):6634-6654. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02375-7 PMid:38480677
31. Gagnier JJ, de Arruda GT, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB. Consensus group COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures: version 2.0. Qual Life Res. 2025;34(7):1901-1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03950-x PMid:40153128
Downloads
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copy rights of the articles published in Colombia Médica belong to the Universidad del Valle. The contents of the articles that appear in the Journal are exclusively the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editorial Committee of the Journal. It is allowed to reproduce the material published in Colombia Médica without prior authorization for non-commercial use