King J1, Brosseau L1, Guitard P2, Laroche C2, Barette JA3, Cardinal D1, Cavallo S2, Laferrière L4, Toupin-April K5, Bérubé M-È2, O'Neil J1, Castro J1, Kidjo C1, Fakhry S1, Sutton A2, Galipeau R6, Tourigny J7, Lagacé J2, Demers C2, Paquet N1, Pharand D7, Loew L1, Vaillancourt V2, Sauvé-Schenk K8
1University of Ottawa, Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, 2University of Ottawa, School of Rehabilitation, Ottawa, Canada, 3University of Ottawa, Department of Linguistics, Ottawa, Canada, 4Ministry of National Defense, Canadian Force Health Services, Ottawa, Canada, 5Children`s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Research, Ottawa, Canada, 6Université de Québec en Outaouais, School of Nursing, Gatineau, Canada, 7University of Ottawa, School of Nursing, Ottawa, Canada, 8Hôpital Montfort, Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Background: Physiotherapy is both a patient-centered profession and an evidence based profession. It is therefore necessary to incorporate patients' perspectives into evidence based practice. Often times, patients´ perspectives are captured through qualitative research. To assess the quality of research, including qualitative research, physiotherapists need to use valid and reliable tools. One such tool is the Consolidated Criteria for Qualitative Studies (COREQ) checklist (Tong, 2007). Unfortunately this checklist is not available in Canadian French.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to prepare a Canadian French translation of the COREQ checklist and to examine its reliability and validity.

Methods: A modified version of the Vallerand (1989) method was used to translate the COREQ checklist into Canadian French. It is a parallel method of reverse translation that involves 4 steps:
1) preparation of draft versions of the translated checklist by a professional translator and a bilingual content expert translator,
2) an evaluation of the draft versions and a preparation of an experimental version by an expert committee of 5 bilingual health care professionals,
3) an evaluation of the experimental version by a second expert committee of 5 bilingual health care professionals,
4) preparation / development of the pre-final version. At this stage, the second experimental version of the COREQ checklist was evaluated by 28 students from the francophone component of a master´s degree in physiotherapy, using a 7-point ambiguity scale for items (1 = very clear to 7 = very ambiguous), and suggested final modifications.
5) The fifth step was a reverse translation into English of the pre-final version of the COREQ. This was an additional step inspired by the methodology of Beaton et al. (2000). Participants completed a consent form and a demographic form prior to participating in the study.

Results: For the different elements of the final version of the COREQ scale, the averages on the ambiguity scale varied between 1.04 and 2.56. These low values ​​demonstrated a high level of clarity for the elements of the Canadian French version COREQ. Compared to the total score of the COREQ scale, the inter-rater reliability was considered moderate to excellent for 62.5% of the individual elements according to the kappa values ​​obtained. As well, translation of the checklist resulted in interesting insights into the use of both English and French terminology in qualitative research.

Conclusion(s): This five step rigorous process has produced a valid Canadian French version of the COREQ checklist. The Canadian French version of the COREQ is an important additional evidence based practice tool for francophone physiotherapy students and physiotherapists.

Implications: Although this project involved the translation of an evidence based tool from English into French, a similar process could be used by physiotherapists to translate and validate other evidence based tools from one language into another language.

Keywords: Qualitative research, translation, evidence based practice

Funding acknowledgements: Office of the Vice-Rector of Studies, University of Ottawa

Topic: Research methodology & knowledge translation

Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: University of Ottawa
Ethics committee: The Health Sciences and Science Research Ethics Board
Ethics number: H12-13-03

All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.

Back to the listing