以质量求发展，以服务铸品牌

护理学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (18): 1-5.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2019.18.001

• 研究生园地 •    下一篇

格罗宁根衰弱指标的汉化研究

黄韵芝1,2, 林清3   

  1. 1.中山职业技术学院社会工作教研室,广东 中山 528400;
    2.澳门科技大学医学院 澳门;
    3.香港理工大学护理学院 老年护理研究中心 香港
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-21 出版日期:2019-09-25 发布日期:2020-07-14
  • 作者简介:黄韵芝（1984-）,女,广东中山人,硕士研究生学历,博士研究生在读,讲师,副科长。E-mail：emma.zizi@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    广东省教育厅2018年度广东省普通高校重点科研平台和科研项目-青年创新人才类项目（2018GkQNCX134）

Translation Study of Groningen Frailty Indicator

Emma Yun-zhi HUANG1,2, Simon Ching Lam3   

  1. 1. Division of Social Work, Zhongshan Polytechnic, Zhongshan 528400, China;
    2. Faculty of Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China;
    3. Geriatric Care Research Center, School of Nursing, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University,Hong Kong, China
  • Received:2019-05-21 Online:2019-09-25 Published:2020-07-14

PDF (PC)

750

赞

摘要： 目的 对英文版格罗宁根衰弱指标（Groningen Frailty Indicator）进行中文翻译,并测试其语义等价、内容效度和表面效度,验证问卷接受度和理解程度,为评价中国老年人衰弱程度提供量表工具。方法 采用Brislin翻译法对英文版格罗宁根衰弱指标进行正向翻译及回译,邀请12名专家应用4分李克特量表,分别对问卷的语义等价以及内容效度进行评价。对通过专家效度评价的量表进行表面效度评价,选取20名不同文化程度老年人,采用访谈的方法测试老年人对问卷的接受和理解程度,并根据老年人对条目的修改建议进行修订,最终形成格罗宁根衰弱指标中文版问卷。结果 格罗宁根衰弱指标英文版与回译版的语义表达一致。12名专家效度评价结果为,条目的语义等价等级为83%~100%,量表的语义等价等级为86%~100%;内容效度指数98%,专家效度评价均达到满意的结果。20名参加表面效度评价的老年人（50%为文盲）可以接受和理解格罗宁根衰弱指标中文版问卷的大部分条目,其中接受度为100%;理解度为97%。结论 格罗宁根衰弱指标英文版成功汉化,可以作为中国老年人衰弱情况的初步筛查工具。

关键词: 格罗宁根衰弱指标, 衰弱, 老年人, 翻译, 语义等价

Abstract: Objective To translate the English Groningen Frailty Indicator into Chinese and examine the semantic equivalence, content validity, face validity of the translated version. Methods Groningen Frailty Indicator was translated into Chinese by two independent translators using Brislin's model. The translated version were further reviewed by 12 healthcare experts for semantic equivalence and content validity by using 4-point Likert scale. After that, 20 elderly people with various educational background were invited to comment on each item for its comprehensibility, interpretability and acceptancy. Results Groningen Frailty Indicator was translated from English into Chinese and the semantic equivalences between source language and target language were maintained. According to 12 bilingual healthcare experts, the item-level (83%~100%) and scale-level (86%~100%) semantic equivalences were both satisfactory and content validity index was 98%. Elderly participants (50% illiterate) can accept and comprehend most of the items (100% acceptance, 97% comprehensibility). Conclusion Groningen Frailty Indicator is translated into Chinese and named as Groningen Frailty Indicator - Chinese. This study provides evidence that Groningen Frailty Indicator - Chinese is an acceptable and comprehensible tool in frailty status screening for Chinese elderly people.

Key words: groningen frailty indicator, frailty, elderly, translation, semantic equivalence

中图分类号: 

  • R473.59
[1] Apóstolo J, Cooke R, Bobrowicz-Campos E, et al.Predicting Risk and Outcomes for Frail Older Adults: An Umbrella Review of Frailty Screening Tools[J]. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 2017, 15(4):1154.DOI:10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003018.
[2] Rockwood K, Mitnitski A.Frailty Defined by Deficit Accumulation and Geriatric Medicine Defined by Frailty[J]. Clin Geriatr Med, 2011, 27(1):17-26. DOI:10.1016/j.cger.2010.08.008.
[3] Basic D, Shanley C.Frailty in an Older Inpatient Population: Using the Clinical Frailty Scale to Predict Patient Outcomes[J]. J Aging Health, 2016, 27(4):670-685. DOI:10.1177/0898264314558202.
[4] Steverink N, Slaets J P J, Schuurmans H, et al. Measuring Frailty: Developing and Testing the GFI (Groningen Frailty Indicator)[J]. Gerontologist, 2001,41:236-237.
[5] Peters L L, Boter H, Buskens E, et al.Measurement Properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Home-dwelling and Institutionalized Elderly People[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2012,13(6):546-551. DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007.
[6] 奚兴,郭桂芳,孙静. 中文版Tilburg衰弱评估量表的信效度研究[J]. 护理学报, 2013, 20(8B):1-5.
[7] Dent E, Kowal P, Hoogendijk E O.Frailty Measurement In Research and Clinical Practice: A Review[J]. Eur J Intern Med, 2016, 31(1):3-10. DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.007.
[8] Lam S C.Development and Validation of a Quality of Life Instrument for Older Chinese People in Residential Care Homes[D]. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015.
[9] Lam S C, Chan Z S L, Chong A C Y, et al. Adaptation and validation of Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale in Chinese Population[J]. J Behav Addict, 2018, 7(3):760-769.
[10] Streiner D L, Norman G R, Cairney J.Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use[M]. USA: Oxford University Press,2015.DOI:10.1556/2006.7.2018.94.
[11] Baitar A, Van Fraeyenhove F, Vandebroek A, et al.Evaluation of the Groningen Frailty Indicator and the G8 Questionnaire as Screening Tools for Frailty in Older Patients With Cancer[J]. J Geriatr Oncol, 2013, 4(1):32-38.
[12] Lam S C, Yeung C C Y, Chan J H M. et al. Adaptation of the Score for Allergic Rhinitis in the Chinese Population: Psychometric Properties and Diagnostic Accuracy[J]. Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 2017, 173(4):213-224.DOI:10.1159/000477
[13] Portney L G, Watkins M P.Foundations of Clinical Research: Application to Practice (3rd ed.)[M]. London: Pearson Prentice Hall Health, 2009.
[14] Lam S C, Wong Y Y, Woo J.Reliability and Validity of the Abbreviated Mental Test (Hong Kong Version) in Residential Care Homes[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc,2010, 58(11):2255-2257.DOI:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03129.
[15] 卢云峰. 当代中国宗教状况报告——基于CFPS(2012)调查数据[J]. 世界宗教文化, 2014(1):11-20.
[16] 张航空. 中国老年人口受教育水平现状及其变动[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2016, 36(5):1215-1216.
[1] 赵迪, 赵梦璐, 王娜, 付明晶, 梁凤, 张伟, 王爱敏. 青岛市592名社区老年人社会隔离现状及影响因素研究[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(11): 6-10.
[2] 李秋萍, 韩斌如, 陈曦. 外科大手术老年患者发生术后低蛋白血症影响因素的队列研究[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(11): 66-70.
[3] 玄令美, 颛孙雯, 陈梦婷, 张立秀. 虚拟现实技术在老年痴呆患者中的研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(3): 17-19.
[4] 杨心悦, 沈琦, 谢芳芳, 易荣, 杨晨, 王冬华. 381例社区老年慢性病患者自主性感知现状及影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(3): 46-50.
[5] 靳瑜, 窦丽亚, 马慧珍. 抗阻力运动对老年2型糖尿病伴衰弱患者的应用效果[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(3): 51-55.
[6] 胡凯, 王静, 王明霞, 徐飞亚, 汪佳盈. 27例重症急性胰腺炎患者预防ICU获得性衰弱的护理[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(3): 59-61.
[7] 蒋兴莉, 王冬华. 381例农村老年人积极老化现状及其影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(15): 41-45.
[8] 倪洁, 葛兆霞. 衰弱前期老年患者运动衰弱干预试验效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(15): 65-69.
[9] 许可彩, 于卫华. 老年人功能性体适能的影响因素研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(13): 34-37.
[10] 张怡馨,吴思艳,唐欣如,周绍谜,王冬华. 长沙市岳麓区415名社区老年人积极老龄化现状及影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(6): 33-36.
[11] 喻雅真,刘海琼,李丹,麦静怡,戴丽,王冬华. 407名社区老年慢性病患者健康赋权与述情障碍相关性研究[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(5): 71-74.
[12] 于彤, 霍晓鹏, 王晓晶, 芦英洁, 吴满满, 周欣. 坐式八段锦对高龄衰弱老年患者疲乏和衰弱的影响[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(23): 54-57.
[13] 陆柳营, 陈玲, 杨永, 傅桂芬, 韦玉娟, 王文广, 涂燕玉, 杨连招. 原发性老年高血压合并衰弱的研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(21): 19-23.
[14] 查春梅, 王萍, 胡晖, 黄惠仙, 韦芳, 张美胡, 黄紫霞. 221名养老机构老年人护理安全风险认知现状分析[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(21): 40-42.
[15] 黎喆, 丁欣. 衰弱评估在主动脉瓣狭窄患者中的应用进展[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(20): 14-17.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
No Suggested Reading articles found!