Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.22683/tsnr.2021.10.2.109

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

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)
Publication Information
Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation / v.10, no.2, 2021 , pp. 109-128 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Activities of Daily Living (ADL); Cognition; Cross-cultural adaptation; Reliability; Stroke; Validity;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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
2 Arnadottir, G. (1990). The brain and behavior: Assessing cortical dysfunction through activities of daily living (ADL). St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
3 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   DOI
4 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.
5 Conti, J. (2017). Cognitive assessment: A challenge for occupational therapists in Brazil. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 11(2), 121-128. doi:10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-020004   DOI
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 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   DOI
9 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.
10 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   DOI
11 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   DOI
12 Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193-205.   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 Kwon, Y. C. (1989). Korean version of mini-mental state examination (MMSE-K). Journal of the Korean Neurological Association, 28(1), 123-135.
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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.
18 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.
19 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   DOI
20 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   DOI
21 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.
22 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.   DOI
23 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.
24 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   DOI
25 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   DOI