Une version franco-canadienne de la Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale : L'Échelle PEDro
RÉSUMÉ
RÉSUMÉ
But : Effectuer une traduction franco-canadienne de la PEDro scale sous l'appellation proposée d'Échelle PEDro et examiner la validité de son contenu. Méthodologie : Nous avons utilisé une approche modifiée de la méthodologie de validation transculturelle de Vallerand. Une traduction renversée parallèle de la PEDro scale a d'abord été effectuée à la fois par des traductrices professionnelles et des chercheurs cliniciens. Ensuite, un premier comité d'experts (P1) a examiné les versions traduites et a créé la première version expérimentale de l'Échelle PEDro. Cette version a été évaluée par un deuxième comité d'experts (P2). Finalement, 32 chercheurs cliniques ont évalué cette deuxième version expérimentale de l'Échelle PEDro à l'aide d'une échelle de clarté (étendue de 5 points) et ont proposé les modifications finales. Résultats : Pour les différents énoncés de la version finale de l'Échelle PEDro, les moyennes sur l'échelle de clarté montrent un niveau élevé puisqu'elles varient entre 4,0 et 4,7 sur un score maximal de 5 points. Conclusion : Les quatre étapes rigoureuses du processus ont permis de produire une version franco-canadienne valide de l'Échelle PEDro.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To prepare a Canadian French translation of the PEDro Scale under the proposed name l'Échelle PEDro, and to examine the validity of its content. Methods: A modified approach of Vallerand's cross-cultural validation methodology was used, beginning with a parallel back-translation of the PEDro scale by both professional translators and clinical researchers. These versions were reviewed by an initial panel of experts (P1), who then created the first experimental version of l'Échelle PEDro. This version was evaluated by a second panel of experts (P2). Finally, 32 clinical researchers evaluated the second experimental version of l'Échelle PEDro, using a 5-point clarity scale, and suggested final modifications. Results: The various items on the final version of l'Échelle PEDro show a high degree of clarity (from 4.0 to 4.7 on the 5-point scale). Conclusion: The four rigorous steps of the translation process have produced a valid Canadian French version of the PEDro scale.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Références
1.
PEDro Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Sydney (NSW): The George Institute for Global Health; c2014 [mise à jour le 5 mai 2014; consultée le 8 mai 2014]. Disponible à : http://www.pedro.org.au/
2.
Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, et al. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther. 2011;91(2):190–7. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100116. Medline:21148259
3.
Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, et al. Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed. Physiotherapy. 2009;95(3):151–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006. Medline:19635333
4.
Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, et al. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother. 2002;48(1):43–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60281-6. Medline:11869164
5.
Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Maher CG, et al. PEDro. A database of randomized trials and systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2000;5(4):223–6. https://doi.org/10.1054/math.2000.0372. Medline:11052901
6.
Sherrington C, Moseley AM, Herbert RD, et al. Ten years of evidence to guide physiotherapy interventions: Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(12):836–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.066357. Medline:19846426
7.
Elkins MR, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, et al. Growth in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and use of the PEDro scale. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(4):188–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091804. Medline:23134761
8.
Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, Foley NC, et al. The PEDro scale provides a more comprehensive measure of methodological quality than the Jadad scale in stroke rehabilitation literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(7):668–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.002. Medline:15939217
9.
Foley NC, Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, et al. Estimates of quality and reliability with the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Phys Ther. 2006;86(6):817–24. Medline:16737407
10.
Armijo Olivo S, Gazzi Macedo L, Gadotti IC, et al. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88(2):156–75. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070147. Medline:18073267
11.
Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(1):12–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x. Medline:20698919
12.
Armijo-Olivo S, Fuentes J, Ospina M, et al. Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):116. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-116. Medline:24044807
13.
Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21. Medline:12882612
14.
Murray E, Power E, Togher L, et al. The reliability of methodological ratings for speechBITE using the PEDro-P scale. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013;48(3):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12007. Medline:23650886
15.
de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):129–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70043-1. Medline:19463084
16.
Tooth L, Bennett S, McCluskey A, et al. Appraising the quality of randomized controlled trials: inter-rater reliability for the OTseeker evidence database. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11(6):547–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00574.x. Medline:16364108
17.
Macedo LG, Elkins MR, Maher CG, et al. There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):920–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.005. Medline:20171839
18.
Vallerand RJ. Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: implication pour la recherche en langue française. Psychol Can. 1989;30(4):662–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079856
19.
Hébert R, Bravo G, Voyer L. La traduction d'instruments de mesure pour la recherche gérontologique en langue française: critères méthodologiques et inventaires. Rev Can Vieillissement. 1994;13(03):392–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980800006206
20.
Lysyk M, Brown GT, Rodrigues E, et al. Translation of the Leisure Satisfaction Scale into French: a validation study. Occup Ther Int. 2002;9(1):76–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.157. Medline:12375009
21.
René F, Casimiro L, Tremblay M, et al. Une version canadienne française du Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) : L'Échelle fonctionnelle des membres inférieurs (ÉFMI), partie I. Physiother Can. 2011a;63(2):242–8. https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2010-11F. Medline:22379265
22.
Pouchot J, Larbre JP, Lemelle I, et al., and the Pediatric Rheumatology Interational Trials Organisation Qualité de Vie en Rhumatologie Group. Validation of the French version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69(5):468–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1297-319X(02)00432-3. Medline:12477231
23.
Larousse P. Le Petit Larousse illustré : dictionnaire. Paris : Édition Larousse; 2013
24.
Robert P. Le Petit Robert 1 : dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Paris : Édition Le Robert; 2013
25.
Fortin MF. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche : méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. 2e éd. Montréal : Chenelière Éducation; 2010
26.
Termium Plus. La banque de données terminologiques et linguistiques du gouvernement du Canada. Ottawa : Travaux Publics et Services Gouvernementaux Canada; c2014 [mise à jour le 4 avril 2014; consultée le 12 mai 2014]. Disponible à : http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/
27.
René F, Casimiro L, Tremblay M, et al. Fiabilité test retest et validité de construit de la version française de L'Échelle fonctionnelle des membres inférieurs (ÉFMI), partie II. Physiother Can. 2011b;63(2):249–55. https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2010-12F. Medline:22379266
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Physiotherapy Canada
Volume 67 • Number 3 • Summer 2015
Pages: 232 - 239
Copyright
© Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2015. All rights reserved.
History
Published online: 7 Mai 2015
Published in print: Summer 2015
Mots clés :
Key Words:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Related Content
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Download article citation data for:
Physiotherapy Canada 2015 67:3, 232-239
Physiotherapy Canada 2015 67:3, 232-239