Evidence-based services in vocational rehabilitation call for valid and reliable assessments of work performance for intervention planning and safe return to work for individuals with illness or injuries. Assessments that are easy to use, culturally adapted, and in a language professionals and clients understand is important for their utility. Translation and adaption of assessments to new languages and cultures are of importance to maintain high standards of assessments and the quality of services in the vocational rehabilitation setting.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP), into the Icelandic language and culture. Furthermore, to investigate the content validity and utility of the evaluation instrument.
METHODS:
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase, based on the Dual-Panel translation method, included two expert panels performing translation and cultural adaption of the original Swedish AWP. In the second phase field testing of the translated instrument was followed by an online survey among vocational rehabilitation professionals for content validation and utility.
RESULTS:
The results of the study showed satisfactory opinions from experienced professionals toward the content validity, translation, cultural adaption, and utility of the Icelandic version of the AWP.
CONCLUSIONS:
The study indicates that the Dual-Panel translation method is a valid method when translating instruments from one language and culture to another. Furthermore, the results of the study imply that the AWP can be regarded as content valid up to an acceptable degree for implementation in vocational rehabilitation services in Iceland.
HerbertssonT. Why Icelanders do not retire early. Stockholm: Pensionsforum; 2001.
2.
SandqvistJ, EkbladhE. Applying the Model of Human Occupation to Vocational Rehabilitation. In: Taylor RR, editor. Kielhofner’s Model of Human Occupation. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2017. pp. 377–396.
3.
JacobsK. Occupational therapy: Work-related programs and assessments, 2nd ed. Boston: Little and Brown Company; 1991.
4.
SlebusFG, SluiterJK, KuijerPP, WillemsJH, Frings-DresdenMH. Work-ability evaluation: A piece of cake or a hard nut to crack?Disability and Rehabilitation. 2007;29(16):1295–300.
5.
SandqvistJL, HenrikssonCM. Work functioning: A conceptual framework. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2004;23:147–57.
6.
LintonSJ, GrossD, SchultsIZ, MainC, PranskyG, JohnsonW. Prognosis and the identification of workers risking disability: Research issues and directions for future research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):459–74.
7.
Arbetsmiljöverket. Arbetsmiljölagen med kommentarer [Work Environment Authority][Homepage on the Internet]; 2003. [updated 2018 Okt 2, cited 2019 Jun 10]. Avaliable from: http://www.av.se.
8.
InnesE, StrakerL. Validity of work-related assessments. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 1999a;13(2):125–52.
9.
InnesE, StrakerL. Reliability of Work-Related Assessments. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 1999b;13(2):107–24.
10.
SandqvistJL, GullbergMT, HenrikssonCM, GerdleBU. Content validity and utility of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2008;30(4):441–50.
11.
McFaddenS, MacDonaldA, FogartyA, LeeS, MerritBK. Vocational assessment: A review of the literature from an occupation-based perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2010;17:42–8.
12.
SandqvistJL, TörnquistKB, HenrikssonCM. Assessment of Work Performance (AWP)- development of an instrument. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2006;26(40):379–87.
13.
InnesE, StrakerL. Attributes of exellence in work-related assessments. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2003;19:149–65.
14.
InnesE. Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluation: An update. International Journal of Disability Management Research. 2006;1(1):135–48.
15.
BarthJ, de BoerWEL, BusseJW, HovingJL, KedziaS, CoubanR, FisherK, von AllmenDY, SpanjerJ, KunzR. Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies. BMJ. 2017;356:j14.
16.
De BaetsS, CaldersP, SchalleyN, VermeulenK, VertriestS, Van PeteghemL, CoussensM, MalfaitF, VanderstraetenG, Van HoveG, Van de VeldeD. Updating the Evidence on Functional Capacity Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28:418–28.
17.
MathesonLN, GaudinoEA, MaelF, HesseBW. Improving the validity of the impairment evaluation process: A proposed theoretical framework. J Occup Rehab. 2000;10(4).
18.
McDowellI, NewellC. Measuring health- A guide to rating scales and questionnaires, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
StreinerDL, NormanGR. Health measurement scales –a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2008.
21.
SartoriusN, KuykenW. Translation of health status instruments. In: Orley J, Kuyken W. (eds) Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 1994.
22.
SquiresA, AikenLH, van den HeedeK, SermeusW, BruyneelL, LindqvistR, SchoonhovenL, StromsengI, BusseR, BrzostekT, EnsioA, Moreno-CasbasM, ReffertyAM, SchubertM, ZikosD, MatthewsA. A systematic survey instrument translation process for multi-country, comparative health workforce studies. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2013;50(2):264–73.
23.
BeatonDE, BombardierC, GuilleminF, FerrazMB. Guidelines for the process of cross- cultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE. 2000;25(24):31. 3186–3191.
24.
McKennaSP, DowardLC. The translation and cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health. 2005;8(2).
25.
SandqvistJL, BjörkMA, GullbergMT, HenrikssonCM, GerdleBU. Construct Validity of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2009;32(2):211–8.
26.
FanCW, TaylorRR, EkbladhE, HemmingssonH, SandqvistJ. Evaluating the psychometric properties of a clinical vocational rehabilitation outcome measurement: The Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). OTJR. 2013;33(3):125–33.
27.
KarlssonEA, LiedbergGM, SandqvistJL. Initial evaluation of psychometric properties of a structured work task application for the Assessment of Work Performance in a constructed environment. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2018;40(21):2585–91.
Swaine-VerdierA, DowardLC, HagellP, ThorsenH, McKennaSP. Adapting quality of life instruments. Value in Health. 2004;7(1):27–30.
30.
GulleminF, BombardierC, BeatonD. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1993;46(12):1417–32.
31.
WildD, GroveA, MartinM, EremencoS, McElroyS, Verjee-LorenzA, EriksonP. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health. 2005;8:94–104.
32.
HagellP, HedinPJ, MeadsDM, NybergL, McKennaSP. Effects of method of translation of patient-reported health outcome questionnaires: A randomized study of the translation of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) Instrument for Sweden. Value in Health. 2010;13(4):424–30.
33.
DepoyE, GitlinL. Introduction to research: Understanding and applying multiple strategies [3rd ed.] Missouri: Elsevier Mosby; 2005.
34.
BehlingO, LawKS. Translating questionnaires and other research instruments, problems and solutions. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. California: SAGE Publictions; 2000.
35.
ColtonS, HatcherT. TheWeb-based Delphi Research Technique as a method for content validation in HRD and adult education research. [online]. [cited 2010 10 4]. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492146.pdf.
36.
LynnMR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986;35(6):382–5.
37.
GraneheimUH, LundmanB. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. 2004;24:105–12.
38.
SPSS Inc. Released 2007. SPSS forWindows,Version 16.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
VelozoC, KielhofnerG, FisherG. A user’s manual for the worker role interview. University of Illinois at Chicago: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse, 1998.
41.
BaronK, KielhofnerG, IyengerA, GoldhammerV, WolenskiJ. Occupational Self Assessment (OSA) Version 2.2, Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse (Department of Occupational Therapy); University of Illinois, 2006.
42.
FisherAG. Occupational therapy intervention process model: a model for planning and implementing top-down, client-centered, and occupation-based interventions. Fort Collins, Colorado: Three Star Press Inc., 2009.
43.
Moore-CornerRA, KielhofnerG, and OlsonL. A User’s Guide to Work Environment Impact Scale (WEIS) (Version 2.0). The Model of Human Occupation, Clearinghouse, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1998.
44.
FisherAG. Assessment of motor and process skills, Vol. 1: Development, standardization, and administration manual (6th ed.) Fort Collins, CO: Three Star, 2006.
45.
WareJE, SherbourneCD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Medical Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.
46.
ShawL, CampellH, JacobsK, ProdingerB. Twenty years of assessment in WORK: A narrative review. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2010;35(3):257–67.
47.
LeeJ, KielhofnerG. Vocational intervention based on the Model of Human Occupation: A review of evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2010;17:177–9.
48.
FengerK, KramerJM. Worker Role Interview: Testing the psychometric properties of the Icelandic version. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2007;14:160–72.
49.
StoffelA, BergC. Spanish translation and validation of the Preschool Activity Card Sort. Physical and Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics. 2008;28:171–89.
50.
AlmgrenM, LundmarkM, SamuelsonK. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: Translation and reliability testing in a Swedish intensive care unit. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54(6):729–35.
