Objective: This study was intended to validate a Spanish adaptation of the Multi-Problem Screening Inventory (MPSI), which was developed by Hudson and McMurtry for assessment in social work practice. Method: Research was based on the cross-cultural equivalence model and included a content judgment study followed by a field test with a sample of 313 Puerto Rican university students. Results: Findings regarding internal consistency as well as item, factorial, discriminant, and convergent analyses of the Spanish MPSI were similar to those of the English version; items were found to be relevant for Puerto Ricans. Conclusions: Content, technical, and conceptual equivalence of the Spanish and English versions of the MPSI were supported, and thus its valid use in social work practice with the study population.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bravo, M., Canino, G. J., Rubio-Stipec, M., & Woodbury-Fariña, M. (1991). A cross-cultural adaptation of a psychiatric epidemiological instrument: The Diagnostic Interview Schedule’s adaptation in Puerto Rico. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 15, 1-18.
2.
Bravo, M., Woodbury-Fariña, M., Canino, G. J., & Rubio-Stipec, M., (1993). The Spanish translation and cultural adaptation of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for children (DISC) in Puerto Rico. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 17, 329-344.
3.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
4.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
Burman, M. A., Karno, M., Hough, R. L., Escobar, J. I., & Forsythe, R. L. (1983). The Spanish Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Reliability and comparison with clinical diagnoses. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 1189-1196.
6.
Crocker, L. (1997). Assessing content representativeness of performance assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 83-95.
7.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
8.
Ellis, B. B. (1991). Item response theory: A tool for assessing the equivalence of translated tests. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 33-51.
9.
Flaherty, J. A. (1987). Appropriate and inappropriate research methodologies for Hispanic Mental Health. In M. Gaviria (Ed.), Health and behavior: Research agenda for Hispanics (pp. 177-186). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
10.
Hambleton, R. K., & Bollwark, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 3-32.
11.
Hudson, W. W. (1982). The Clinical Measurement Package: A field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
12.
Hudson, W. W. (1990a). MPSI technical manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR Publishing.
13.
Hudson, W. W. (1990b). WALMYR Assessment Scale scoring manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR Publishing.
14.
Hudson, W. W., & McMurtry, S. L. (1997). Comprehensive assessment in social work practice: The Multi-Problem Screening Inventory. Research on Social Work Practice, 7, 79-98.
15.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131-152.
16.
Hulin, C. L. (1987). A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: Fidelity across languages. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 115-142.
17.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382-385.
18.
Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B. V., Otero-Sabogal, R., Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183-205.
19.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Poortinga, Y. H., & Malpass, R. S. (1986). Making inferences from cross-cultural data. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 17-46). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Poortinga, Y. H., & Van de Vijver, F.J.R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural difference: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259-282.
22.
Prieto, A. J. (1992). A method for translation of instruments to other languages. Adult Education Quarterly, 43, 1-14.
23.
Sahai, H., & Martinez, W. (1996). Tablas y fórmulas estadísticas para las ciencias biológicas, sociales y físicas [Statistical tables and formulas for biological, social, and physical sciences]. Mexico, D.F.: Grupo Editorial Iberoamerica.
24.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: John Wiley.
25.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990). Summary of population and housing characteristics for persons of Hispanic origin [Sample data]. Washington, DC: Goverment Printing Office.
26.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994, May). The Hispanic population in the United States: March 1993. Current Population Reports (Series P-20-475). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
27.
Waltz, C. F., & Barker-Bausell, R. (1981). Nursing research: Design, statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
