Translation and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring the Suitability of Health Educational Materials in Taiwan: Suitability Assessment of Materials

台灣衛教教材適用性測量工具的翻譯及效度測試－教材適用性評估

10.1097/jnr.0000000000000018

張美娟(Mei-Chuan Chang)；陳月枝(Yueh-Chih Chen)；高碧霞(Bih-Shya Gau)；曾于芬(Yu-Fen Tzeng)

適用性 ； 衛教教材 ； 反向翻譯 ； 效度 ； 信度 ； suitability ； health education materials ； back-translation ； validity ； reliability

The Journal of Nursing Research

22卷1期（2014 / 03 / 01）

61 - 68

英文

背景　提供民眾可理解的健康訊息，確保健康的行為以及健康結果是重要的醫護職責。英語系的國家已發展許多工具，進行衛教教材的適用性評值，但在中文系的國家中很缺乏。目的　本研究主要進行教材適用性評估（Suitability Assessment of Materials [SAM]）的中文翻譯，利用嚴謹的翻譯及檢測過程，提供有效的工具評值中文書面衛教教材的適用性。方法　翻譯過程包括：前向翻譯、反向翻譯以及翻譯等義測驗，用以評值語義與內容的對等性。舉行專家小組討論原英文版與反向翻譯英文版之間的差異。以內容效度指數呈現SAM中文版的內容效度。兩位評分者分別以SAM中文版進行7份衛教教材的適用性評值，計算Cohen's Kappa係數以估計評分者間的一致性；計算Cronbach's α值測試工具的內在一致性。結果　SAM英文版與中文版間存在許多不一致性，專家小組針對兩個版本22個評值項目中存在差異者，一一交互討論確認。中文版總量表內容效度指數達.99，Cohen's Kappa同意係數為.25，以及Cronbach's α值為.91。結論／實務應用　本研究發現，SAM中文版是一有效且可信的工具，可用於臨床評值中文書面衛教教材的適用性。

Background: It is essential to provide readily comprehensible health information to the public to increase healthy behaviors and improve outcomes. Researchers in English-speaking countries possess well-developed instruments to evaluate the suitability of health education materials. However, few of these instruments are available for use in Chinese-language environments.Purpose: This study aimed to translate the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) into Chinese. Researchers used a rigorous translation and testing process to provide a valid instrument to evaluate the suitability of health education materials written in Chinese.Methods: The translation process included forward- and back-translations and a test for translation equivalence that evaluated semantic and content equivalence. A panel discussion was held on the discrepancies between the original English and back-translated English versions. The content validity index was calculated to confirm the validity of the SAM Chinese version. Two raters used the Chinese-version SAM to evaluate seven health education handouts. A Cohen's kappa coefficient was calculated to estimate interrater agreement, and Cronbach's alpha assessed the internal consistency of the instrument.Results: Discussions on the differences between the original English and initially translated Chinese versions of the SAM resulted in a final 22-item SAM Chinese version. The content validity index of the final Chinese-language SAM scale was .99, the Cohen's kappa coefficient of agreement was .25, and the Cronbach's alpha value was .91.Conclusions/Implications for Practice: The SAM Chinese version is a valid and reliable instrument with potential use in evaluating the suitability of health education materials written in Chinese.

1. National Kaohsiung Normal University, Department of Industrial Technology Education. (2007). Readability-analysis system for Chinese-language articles. Retrieved from http://140.127.45.25/Readability/Analyze/Help.aspx (Original work published in Chinese)
2. Capitulo, K. L.,Cornelio, M. A.,Lenz, E. R.(2001).Translating the short version of the Perinatal Grief Scale: Process and challenges.Applied Nursing Research,14(3),165-170.
3. Demir, F.,Ozsaker, E.,Ilce, A. O.(2008).The quality and suitability of written educational materials for patients.Journal of Clinical Nursing,17(2),259-265.
4. Doak, C. C.,Doak, L. G.,Root, J. H.(1996).Teaching patients with low literacy skills.Philadelphia, PA:J. B. Lippincott.
5. Eames, S.,McKenna, K.,Worrall, L.,Read, S.(2003).The suitability of written education materials for stroke survivors and their carers.Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation,10(3),70-83.
6. Fleiss, J. L.(1981).Statistical methods for rates and proportions.New York, NY:Wiley.
7. Griffin, E.,McKenna, K.,Worrall, L.(2004).Stroke education materials on the World Wide Web: An evaluation of their quality and suitability.Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation,11(3),29-40.
8. Hoffmann, T.,Ladner, Y.(2012).Assessing the suitability of written stroke materials: An evaluation of the interrater reliability of the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) checklist.Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation,19(5),417-422.
9. Hoffmann, T.,Worrall, L.(2004).Designing effective written health education materials: Considerations for health professionals.Disability & Rehabilitation,26(19),1161-1173.
10. Lin, K. F.(2007)。Layout for readability。Science Development，417，56-61。
11. Liu, M. S.(1986)。Never get tired of reading: A study of layout and reading willingness。Journal of World College of Journalism，2，207-215。
12. Maneesriwongul, W.,Dixon, J. K.(2004).Instrument translation process: A methods review.Journal of Advanced Nursing,48(2),175-186.
13. Marcus, E. N.,Sanders, L. M.,Pereyra, M.,Toro, Y. D.,Romilly, A. P.,Yepes, M.,Jones, B. A.(2011).Mammography result notification letters: Are they easy to read and understand?.Journal of Women's Health,20(4),545-551.
14. Murphy, P. W.,Chesson, A. L.,Berman, S. A.,Arnold, C. L.,Galloway, G.(2001).Neurology patient education materials: Do our educational aids fit our patients' needs?.Journal of Neuroscience Nursing,33(2),99-104.
15. Rubio, D. M.,Berg-Weger, M.,Tebb, S. S.,Lee, E. S.,Rauch, S.(2003).Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research.Social Work Research,27(2),94-104.
16. Sperber, A. D.(2004).Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research.Gastroenterology,126(1, Suppl.),S124-S128.
17. Sperber, A. D.,Devellis, R. F.,Boehlecke, B.(1994).Cross-cultural translation: Methodology and validation.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,25(4),501-524.
18. Trifiletti, L. B.,Shields, W. C.,McDonald, E. M.,Walker, A. R.,Gielen, A. C.(2006).Development of injury prevention materials for people with low literacy skills.Patient Education and Counseling,64(1),119-127.
19. Vallance, J. K.,Taylor, L. M.,Lavallee, C.(2008).Suitability and readability assessment of educational print resources related to physical activity: Implications and recommendations for practice.Patient Education and Counseling,72(2),342-349.
20. Wallace, L. S.,Keenum, A. J.,Roskos, S. E.,Blake, G. H.,Colwell, S. T.,Weiss, B. D.(2008).Suitability and readability of consumer medical information accompanying prescription medication samples.Patient Education and Counseling,70(3),420-425.
21. Wang, W. L.,Lee, H. L.,Fetzer, S. J.(2006).Challenges and strategies of instrument translation.Western Journal of Nursing Research,28(3),310-321.
22. Weintraub, D.,Maliski, S. L.,Fink, A.,Choe, S.,Litwin, M. S.(2004).Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: Applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials.Patient Education and Counseling,55(2),275-280.
23. Yu, D. S. F.,Lee, D. T. F.,Woo, J.(2004).Issues and challenges of instrument translation.Western Journal of Nursing Research,26(3),307-320.

1. 張家翎,邱銘心(2020)。How Much Do Pregnant Women Know? An Exploratory Study on the Readability of Frequently-used Nutrition Terms。圖書資訊學刊，18(2)，139-165。
2. 鄭雅君,章淑娟,張美娟,呂基燕(2015)。小兒科書面衛教教材適用性評估。志為護理-慈濟護理雜誌，14(4)，58-68。
3. (2023)。老人健康檢查族群衛教素材適用性評估——以台北市某醫學中心為例。台灣家庭醫學雜誌，33(2)，79-98。