Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation (재활치료과학)

Korean Society of Neurological Occupational Therapy (대한신경계작업치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Korean Version of the A-ONE

한국판 일상생활활동중심 작업기반 신경행동평가(A-ONE)의 개발 및 평가

  • Kang, Jaewon (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida) ;
  • Park, Hae Yean (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Software and Digital Healthcare Convergence, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Ran (Dept. of Dementia Prevention and Rehabilitation, College of Human Service, Catholic Kwandong University) ;
  • Park, Ji-Hyuk (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Software and Digital Healthcare Convergence, Yonsei University)
  • 강재원 (플로리다대학교 작업치료학과) ;
  • 박혜연 (연세대학교 소프트웨어디지털헬스케어융합대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 김정란 (가톨릭관동대학교 휴먼서비스대학 치매전문재활학과) ;
  • 박지혁 (연세대학교 소프트웨어디지털헬스케어융합대학 작업치료학과)
  • Received : 2020.05.02
  • Accepted : 2020.09.04
  • Published : 2021.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this study was to develop a Korean version of the Activities of Daily Living (ADL)-focused Occupation-Based Neurobehavioral Evaluation (A-ONE) through cross-cultural adaptation and examine its validity and reliability. Methods : This study translated the A-ONE into Korean and performed cross-cultural adaptation for the Korean population. After the development of the Korean version of the A-ONE, cross-cultural and concurrent validities were analyzed. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability were also evaluated. Results : We adapted three items to the Korean culture. The Korean version of the A-ONE showed high cross-cultural validity with a content validity index (I-CVI) >0.9. It correlated with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (r=0.52-0.77, p<0.001), except for communication. Cronbach's α was 0.58-0.93 for the functional independence scale (FI) and 0.42-0.93 for the neurobehavioral specific impairment subscale (NBSIS). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated high test-retest and inter-rater reliability for FI (ICC=0.79-1.00 and 0.75-1.00, respectively) and NBSIS (ICC=0.74-1.00 and 0.72-1.00, respectively). Conclusion : The Korean version of the A-ONE is well adapted to the Korean culture and has good validity and reliability. It is recommended to evaluate ADL performance skills and neurobehavioral impairments simultaneously in Korea.

목적 : 본 연구는 타문화권에서 개발된 일상생활활동중심 작업기반 신경행동평가(A-ONE)를 국내 임상에서 사용할 수 있도록 한국판을 개발하고 한국 환자에게 적용하여 신뢰도와 타당도를 검증하고자 하였다. 연구방법 : 영문판 A-ONE을 한국어로 번역하고 문화적 차이를 검토하였다. 완성된 한국판을 13명의 작업치료학과 교수와 작업치료사에게 국내 적용 가능성을 확인받고, 뇌졸중 환자 42명을 대상으로 신뢰도와 타당성을 검증하였다. 결과 : 총 3개의 문항을 국내 문화에 알맞도록 수정한 결과, 한국판 A-ONE은 Index at the item level(I-CVI)=0.92-1.00을 보이며 평가 문항들이 국내 문화를 잘 대표하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. Functional Independence Measure(FIM)과 상관관계는 의사소통영역을 제외하고 r=0.52-0.77(p>0.01)로 높게 나타난 반면, Lowenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment(LOTCA)와는 전반적으로 유의미한 상관관계를 보이지 않았다(p>0.05). 내적일치도는 기능적 독립성이 Cronbach's α=0.58-0.93, 신경행동손상이 α=0.42-0.93을 보였다. 검사-재검사 신뢰도는 기능적 독립성이 Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC)=0.79-1.00, 신경행동손상이 ICC=0.74-1.00으로 높은 수준을 보였다. 마지막으로, 검사자간 신뢰도는 기능적 독립성이 ICC=0.75-1.00, 신경행동손상이 ICC=0.72-1.00으로 높은 신뢰도를 보였다. 결론 : 한국판 A-ONE은 뇌졸중 환자의 일상생활활동 수행능력과 신경행동손상의 종류 및 손상정도를 평가하기 위해 국내 임상에서 사용될 수 있는 유용한 평가도구이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnadottir, G. (1990). The brain and behavior: Assessing cortical dysfunction through activities of daily living (ADL). St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
  2. Arnadottir, G. (2010). Measuring the impact of body functions on occupational performance: Validation of the ADL-focused Occupation-based Neurobehavioral Evaluation (A-ONE) (Doctoral dissertation). Umea university, Umea.
  3. Arnadottir, G., Lofgren, B., & Fisher, A. G. (2010). Difference in impact of neurobehavioural dysfunction on activities of daily living performance between right and left hemispheric stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(10), 903-907. doi:10.2340/16501977-0621
  4. Arnadottir, G., Lofgren, B., & Fisher, A. G. (2012). Neurobehavioral functions evaluated in naturalistic contexts: Rasch analysis of the A-ONE neurobehavioral impact scale. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(5), 439-449. doi:10.3109/11038128.2011.638674
  5. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  6. Carter, R., & Lubinsky, J. (2015). Statistical analysis of relationships: The basics. In Carter, R., & Lubinsky, J. (Eds.), Rehabilitation research: Principles and applications (5th ed., pp. 318-325). St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
  7. Conti, J. (2017). Cognitive assessment: A challenge for occupational therapists in Brazil. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 11(2), 121-128. doi:10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-020004
  8. Duffy, L., Gajree, S., Langhorne, P., Stott, D. J., & Quinn, T. J. (2013). Reliability (Inter-rater Agreement) of the Barthel Index for Assessment of stroke survivors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke, 44(2), 462-468. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678615
  9. Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
  10. Hamilton, B. B., Laughlin, J. A., Fiedler, R. C., & Granger, C. V. (1994). Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM). Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 26(3), 115-119.
  11. Hodges, M. R., Kirsch, N. L., Newman, M. W., & Pollack, M. E. (2010). Automatic assessment of cognitive impairment through electronic observation of object usage. In Floroen P., Kruger A., Spasojevic M. (Eds.), Pervasive computing (8th ed., pp. 192-209). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12654-3_12
  12. Jia, Z. Y., Wang, W., Nian, X. W., Zhang, X. X., Huang, Z., Cui, J., & Xu, W. D. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the simplified Chinese version of the knee outcome survey activities of daily living scale. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 32(10), 2009-2016. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.068
  13. Johnstone, B., & Frank, R. G. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment in rehabilitation: Current limitations and applications. NeuroRehabilitation, 5(1), 75-86. doi:10.3233/NRE-1995-5107
  14. Kang, J. (2017). Validity and reliability of the cross-culturally adapted the Korean version of the ADL-focused occupation-based neurobehavioral evaluation (A-ONE) (Master's thesis). Yonsei University, Seoul.
  15. Katz, N., Itzkovich, M., Averbuch, S., & Elazar, B. (1989). Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) battery for brain-injured patients: Reliability and validity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43(3), 184-192. doi:10.5014/ajot.43.3.184
  16. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  17. Kwon, Y. C. (1989). Korean version of mini-mental state examination (MMSE-K). Journal of the Korean Neurological Association, 28(1), 123-135.
  18. Law, M., Baptiste, S., McColl, M., Opzoomer, A., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 82-87. doi:10.1177/000841749005700207
  19. Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015291021312
  20. Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index: A simple index of independence useful in scoring improvement in the rehabilitation of the chronically ill. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61-65.
  21. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
  22. Roy, J. S., Esculier, J. F., & Maltais, D. B. (2014). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the knee outcome survey-activities of daily living scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 28(6), 614-623. doi:10.1177/0269215513511342
  23. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline: Validation of instruments or scales. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  24. Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679-686. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9
  25. Yoo, E. Y., Jung, M. Y., Park, S. Y., & Choi, E. H. (2006). Current trends of occupational therapy assessment tool by Korean occupational therapist. The Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy, 14(3), 27-37.