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)

964

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] 李垚, 陈小敏, 夏敏, 吴茜, 张琳, 陈叡喆, 葛莉丽, 吴逸梅. 肿瘤患者衰弱评估工具应用的范围综述[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(4): 48-52.
[2] 焦雪萍, 王志稳, 韩舒羽. ICU老年患者躁动行为的干预研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(3): 38-42.
[3] 陈玉英, 王海彦, 陈思颖, 杨雪娟. 老年人自立支援照护模式的照护技巧及启示[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 31-36.
[4] 刘硕怡, 熊莉娟, 李凌, 王玉梅, 何嘉, 李鑫, 袁淑蕾, 郭雪琴, 王暘婧, 张慧娟. 老年住院患者衰弱预防及管理临床实践指南的质量评价及内容分析[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 50-55.
[5] 闫亚铃, 乐美妮, 姚桃琴, 王雪莲, 姜建玲, 辛艺. 老年胃肠肿瘤患者围手术期衰弱管理方案的构建[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 74-78.
[6] 谭丘羽, 邓一芯, 冀婉倩, 王冬华. 农村老年人自我刻板化与主观记忆抱怨在自我感知老化与痴呆恐惧间的链式中介效应[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(1): 56-61.
[7] 丁心舒, 孙乐菲, 高伟, 鲁琦, 闫畅, 刘德山. 矛盾年龄歧视量表在社区老年人中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(7): 12-16.
[8] 姚晨晨, 陈娟, 杨雷. 老年衰弱患者基于埃德蒙顿衰弱量表评估分层抗阻运动的效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(7): 73-78.
[9] 薛荣, 张开利, 陈保云, 马荣慧, 张雨欣. 中老年脑卒中患者多维衰弱发展轨迹及其影响因素研究[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(6): 6-12.
[10] 周越, 张杰, 潘宇帆, 戴雨, 孙羽健, 肖益, 余雨枫. 机械通气患者衰弱风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(6): 56-61.
[11] 王薇, 周演铃, 薛文萍, 张淋淋, 林书球. 老年髋部骨折患者衰弱评估工具的范围综述[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(4): 42-47.
[12] 邓岚心, 张宇, 李敏锐, 高钰琳. 养老机构老年人认知功能与身体衰弱变化的交叉滞后分析[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(23): 8-12.
[13] 李明哲, 田一川, 王成龙, 王晶晶. 社会网络在智能手机使用与老年人孤独感的因果中介作用[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(20): 45-49.
[14] 王之仪, 颜立春, 胡雅静, 易小聪, 谭素文, 张银华. 养老机构老年人身体约束护理方案的构建与检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(20): 55-59.
[15] 郝杨, 秦艳梅, 毛美琦, 赵雅宁, 刘瑶, 韩影. 基于贝叶斯网络模型的社区老年人认知衰弱的影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(19): 12-18.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
No Suggested Reading articles found!