A Systematic Review of Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Instruments for the Selection of Assistive Technologies.
Bárbara Iansã de Lima Barroso, Cláudia Regina Cabral Galvão, Luiz Bueno da Silva and 1 others
PMID 30515071WHAT IT FOUND
The Quebec questionnaire appeared in three of five included assistive technology questionnaire adaptations.
Many quality checks were good or excellent, but none was fully checked, so use a version with published adaptation.
Key findings
01Only five studies met the review's inclusion criteria.
02The included adaptations covered the QUEST, PIADS, and FIATS assistive technology questionnaires.
03Four versions adapted to Brazilian, Canadian, Turkish, and Chinese cultures were rated excellent for cross-cultural validity.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only five studies met the review's inclusion criteria, so it cannot cover all assistive technology instruments. The review included only freely available full texts, and some studies may not have been captured. Five articles about the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale were not included, so relevant findings may have been missed. The review covered only questionnaires, not other types of assistive technology instruments. No included instrument was fully checked for every quality feature, and none achieved the excellent classification. The Danish QUEST 1.0 adaptation used a sample of n = 10 and was rated poor for several features.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that using an assistive technology questionnaire improves patient selection or outcomes. The review examined how well five translated versions were adapted and checked, not clinical results, and no version was fully checked for every quality feature.