Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Respiratory Distress Observation Scale in Palliative Care Patients: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study
This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt and validate the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) for use with patients in the terminal phase.
Methods
Eighty critically ill patients participated in this prospective, cross-sectional study. We assessed the language equivalence, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the RDOS. Relative reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To evaluate consistency between clinical measurements taken by two different clinicians, we employed Bland-Altman plots and type II regression. Convergent validity was analysed by examining correlations with the Visual Analog Scale for Dyspnea (VAS-D) and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilised to estimate sensitivity and specificity.
Results
The RDOS-T items demonstrated excellent ICC values, ranging from 0.883 to 0.983. The scale showed reproducibility, with upper and lower limits of agreement at 2.148 and −2.423, respectively. A strong positive correlation was found between RDOS-T and VAS-D, while a moderate negative correlation existed between RDOS-T and SpO2. ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.788 (p = .005). It was found that the model had moderate discriminant validity. It also demonstrates its significant distinctiveness.
Conclusion
The RDOS-T is a valid and reliable tool for assessing respiratory distress in this study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the RDOS in patients during the terminal phase.
SantusPRadovanovicDSaadM, et al.Acute dyspnea in the emergency department: A clinical review. Intern Emerg Med. 2023;18(5):1491–1507. doi:10.1007/s11739-023-03322-8
3.
JamesMDPhillipsDBDomnikNJNederJA. Pathophysiological mechanisms of exertional dyspnea in people with cardiopulmonary disease: Recent advances. Respir Physiol Neurobiol2025:104423.
4.
ZhuangQYangGMNeoSHSCheungYB. Validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale for assessment of dyspnea in adult palliative care patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019;57(2):304–310. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.10.506
5.
PrachanukoolTKanjanaKLeeRS, et al.Acceptability of the palliative dyspnoea protocol by emergency clinicians. Support Palliat Care. 2023;13(e3):e756–e758. doi:10.1136/spcare-2022-003959
6.
BerlinerDSchneiderNWelteTBauersachsJ. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(49):834.
7.
MillerSNHigginsECainJ, et al.Dyspnea and palliative care in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A rapid review. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2024;26(4):195–204. doi:10.1097/NJH.0000000000001042
8.
CampbellML. Psychometric testing of a respiratory distress observation scale. J Palliat Med. 2008;11(1):44–50. doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0090
9.
WongRXShirlynnHKohYSGoh Seow LinSQuahDZhuangQ. Exploration and development of a simpler respiratory distress observation scale (modRDOS-4) as a dyspnea screening tool: A prospective bedside study. Palliat Med Reports. 2021;2(1):9–14. doi:10.1089/pmr.2020.0094
10.
PusaSBaxterRSandgrenAAnderssonS. Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Swedish Thanatophobia Scale. J Palliat Care. 08258597251388303.
11.
Ya-HsiangCHua-ShanWUChih-ChingYENMargaretLC. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese Respiratory Distress Observation Scale on critically ill patients with cardiopulmonary diseases. J Nurs Res. 2018;26(5):340–347. doi:10.1097/jnr.0000000000000250
12.
CampbellMLDoneskyDSarkozyAReinkeLF. Treatment of dyspnea in advanced disease and at the end of life. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2021;23(5):406–420. doi:10.1097/NJH.0000000000000766
13.
CampbellMLKeroKKTemplinTN. Mild, moderate, and severe intensity cut-points for the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale. Hear Lung. 2017;46(1):14–17. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2016.06.008
14.
DoverDCBelonAP. The health equity measurement framework: A comprehensive model to measure social inequities in health. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:1–12.
15.
AnthoineEMoretLRegnaultASébilleVHardouinJB. Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:1–10. doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2
16.
SakuramotoHHatozakiCUnokiT, et al.Translation, reliability, and validity of Japanese version of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0255991. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255991
17.
TintiSDestrebecqATerzoniS, et al.Respiratory Distress Observation Scale Italian Version: Cultural-linguistic validation and psychometric properties. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2021;23(2):187–194. doi:10.1097/NJH.0000000000000736
18.
CampbellMLTemplinTN. Intensity cut-points for the respiratory distress observation scale. Palliat Med. 2015;29(5):436–442. doi:10.1177/0269216314564238
LewthwaiteHJensenDEkströmM. How to assess breathlessness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021:1581–1598. doi:10.2147/COPD.S277523
21.
TerweeCBBotSDMde BoerMR, et al.Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
22.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977:159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
23.
BlandJMAltmanD. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
24.
De SmithMJ. Statistical analysis handbook. The Winchelsea Press; 2018.
25.
AndersonFDowningGMHillJCasorsoLLerchN. Palliative performance scale (PPS): A new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12(1):5–11. doi:10.1177/082585979601200102
26.
PintoMCMMinsonFPLopesACBLaselvaCR. Cultural adaptation and reproducibility validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD-Brazil) scale in non-verbal adult patients. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2015;13(1):14–19. doi:10.1590/S1679-45082015AO3036
27.
DaiYJohnsonCEDingJ, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice. Palliat Care. 2024;23(1):89. doi:10.1186/s12904-024-01395-6
28.
MohanSNMukhtarFJobsonL. An exploratory study on cross-cultural differences in facial emotion recognition between adults from Malaysia and Australia. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:622077. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.622077
29.
CampbellMLTemplinTWalchJ. A respiratory distress observation scale for patients unable to self-report dyspnea. J Palliat Med. 2010;13(3):285–290. doi:10.1089/jpm.2009.0229
30.
BoatengGONeilandsTBFrongilloEAMelgar-QuiñonezHRYoungSL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front Public Heal. 2018;6:149. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
31.
JarversISommerMUllmannM, et al.Reading between the lines: Exploring the discriminative ability of the Short-Story Task in identifying autistic individuals within autism outpatient services. Front Psychiatry. 2025;16:1500396. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1500396
32.
PeixotoJMAGonçalvesMAVGasparMFMatosMAV. Developing a valid and reliable cross-cultural measure of coparenting conflict between divorced parents: The Portuguese version of the acrimony scale. J Child Fam Stud. 2022;31(6):1664–1682. doi:10.1007/s10826-022-02233-0
33.
ChiccoDJurmanG. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should replace the ROC AUC as the standard metric for assessing binary classification. BioData Min. 2023;16(1):4. doi:10.1186/s13040-023-00322-4
