Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A cross-cultural mixed methods validation study of the spinal cord injury quality of life basic dataset (SCI QoL-BDS)

Spinal Cord volume 60, pages 177–186 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Study design

Mixed methods inquiry using cognitive interviews and thematic content analysis.

Objectives

Cross-validation of the concept of quality of life (QoL) and of the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic DataSet (SCI QoL-BDS) items across five sites in four countries: United States, Australia, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Analysis aimed to uncover patterns, differences, and similarities suggesting conceptual equivalence for overall QoL and the three SCI QoL-BDS items.

Setting

International, community.

Methods

Semi-structured cognitive interviews with 51 participants across five sites and four countries. Participants with spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D) completed the SCI QoL-BDS items and one additional question. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software. Coded data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Seventeen themes were identified. Responses by sites were compared for conceptual equivalence.

Results

Across the five sites, equivalence in the conceptual meaning of QoL was found based on the frequent commonalities in terminology employed to describe it. Despite sample differences in terms of demographic and SCI characteristics, participants across all sites replied to the SCI QoL-BDS items in a similar way, suggesting good item equivalence. Qualitatively, the differences noted with respect to the use of themes for each question suggest some variability on how participants with SCI/D describe QoL. In spite of these contextual differences, there is a high degree of commonalty not explained by participants’ demographic or injury/disease characteristics.

Conclusions

The SCI QoL-BDS shows good cross-cultural validity among the international sites included in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

De-identified datasets used for this portion of the study can be made available upon request based on and following completion of a data sharing agreement.

References

  1. Szabo S. The World Health Organisation Quality of life (WHOQOL) assesment instrument. Quality Life Pharmacoeconom Clin Trials. 1996:355–62.

  2. Dijkers MP. Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualization, measurement, and research findings. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hammell KW. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Spinal Cord. 2007;45:124–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Post M. Definitions of quality of life: what has happened and how to move on. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabilit. 2014;20:167–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Post M, Noreau L. Quality of life after spinal cord injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005;29:139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ngamaba KH. Determinants of subjective well-being in representative samples of nations. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27:377–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wood-Dauphinee S, Exner G, Bostanci B, Exner G, Glass C, Jochheim KA, et al. Quality of life in patients with spinal cord injury–basic issues, assessment, and recommendations. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2002;20:135–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nevedal A, Kratz AL, Tate DG. Women’s experiences of living with neurogenic bladder and bowel after spinal cord injury: life controlled by bladder and bowel. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:573–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rohn EJ, Tate DG, Forchheimer M, DiPonio L. Contextualizing the lived experience of quality of life for persons with spinal cord injury: A mixed-methods application of the response shift model. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019;42:469–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tate DG, Kalpakjian CZ, Forchheimer MB. Quality of life issues in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:S18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Geyh S, Ballert C, Sinnott A, Charlifue S, Catz A, D’Andrea Greve JM, et al. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a comparison across six countries. Spinal Cord. 2013;51:322–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tate D, Forchheimer M. Review of cross-cultural issues related to quality of life after spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2014;20:181–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bullinger M, Schmidt S, Naber D. Cross-cultural quality of life research in mental health. In: Quality of Life Impairment in Schizophrenia, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Mood and Anxiety Disorders. Springer; 2007. p. 67–98.

  14. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20:105–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Patrick DL, Wild D, Johnson E, Wagner T, Martin M. Cross-cultural validation of quality of life measures. In: Quality of life assessment: International perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Springer;1994. p. 19–32.

  16. Amuyunzu M, Allen T, Mwenesi H, Johnson K, Egasah O, Parker M, et al. The resonance of language: health terms in Kenya. Qual life Res. 1995;4:388–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt S, Bullinger M. Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:S29–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Charlifue S, Post MW, Biering-Sorensen F, Catz A, Dijkers M, Geyh S, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data Set. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:672–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Desimone LM, Le Floch KC. Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 2004;26:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ryan K, Gannon-Slater N, Culbertson MJ. Improving survey methods with cognitive interviews in small-and medium-scale evaluations. Am J Eval. 2012;33:414–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Post MWM, Forchheimer MB, Charlifue S, D’Andrea Greve JM, New PW, Tate DG. Reproducibility of the international spinal cord injury quality of life basic data set: an international psychometric study. Spinal Cord. 2019;57:992–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:323–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA, Group PC. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45:S12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:212–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller K, Mont D, Maitland A, Altman B, Madans J. Results of a cross-national structured cognitive interviewing protocol to test measures of disability. Qual Quant. 2011;45:801–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Willis GB, Miller K. Cross-cultural cognitive interviewing: Seeking comparability and enhancing understanding. Field Methods. 2011;23:331–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Biering-Sorensen F, Alexander MS, Burns S, Charlifue S, DeVivo M, Dietz V, et al. Recommendations for translation and reliability testing of International Spinal Cord Injury Data Sets. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:357–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Post MW, Adriaansen JJ, Charlifue S, Biering-Sorensen F, van Asbeck FW. Good validity of the international spinal cord injury quality of life basic data set. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:314–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11:589–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo (Version 12). 2018. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.

  32. Luborsky MR. The identification and analysis of themes and patterns. In: Gubrium JF, Sankar A, eds. Qualitative methods in aging research. Newbury Park, California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.;1994.

  33. Ryan GW, Bernard HR. Techniques to identify themes. Field methods. 2003;15:85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lequerica AH, Forchheimer M, Albright KJ, Tate DG, Duggan CH, Rahman RO. Stress appraisal in women with spinal cord injury: Supplementary findings through mixed methods. Int J Stress Manag. 2010;17:259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22:63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Peterson DB. International classification of functioning, disability and health: an introduction for rehabilitation psychologists. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;50:105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sommer R, Bullinger M, Chaplin J, Do J, Power M, Pleil A, et al. Experiencing health‐related quality of life in paediatric short stature–a cross‐cultural analysis of statements from patients and parents. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017;24:1370–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank those individuals who shared their stories, insights, and experiences with us. Further, we thankfully acknowledge the contributions by the local research team members across the five sites for their tireless assistance. Ann Arbor: Constance Pines and Christopher Graves; Denver: Jennifer Coker, Abbey Welch, and Bria MacIntyre; Melbourne: Diana Ramirez Hernandez, São Paulo: Angelica Castilho, Alexandra Cristoffi, and Carle Witter; Utrecht: Christel van Leeuwen. We hope that this work honors the time and energy they have given us.

Funding

This work was supported with a grant from the Craig H Neilsen Foundation, California, USA, grant application ID number 440840.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

    Edward J. Rohn

  2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Edward J. Rohn, Martin Forchheimer & Denise G. Tate

  3. Centre of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Aline J. Hakbijl-van der Wind & Marcel W. M. Post

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Marcel W. M. Post

  5. Craig Hospital, Englewood, CO, USA

    Susan Charlifue

  6. Spinal Rehabilitation Service, Caulfield Hospital, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Peter W. New

  7. Epworth-Monash Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Peter W. New

  8. Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Peter W. New

  9. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Medical School of University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Julia M. D. Greve

Authors
  1. Edward J. Rohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aline J. Hakbijl-van der Wind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcel W. M. Post
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Forchheimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan Charlifue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter W. New
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Julia M. D. Greve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Denise G. Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ER led qualitative data analysis, contributed to development and confirmation of findings, developed Tables 2–5 and supplementary tables, and wrote the paper post-introduction. MP contributed to study design, data collection, data analysis, development and confirmation of findings, and conceptualization and revisions of the paper. AH contributed to data collection, data analysis, development and confirmation of findings, and revisions of the paper. MF led quantitative analysis, contributed to development and confirmation of findings, and revisions of the paper. SC, JMAG, and PN contributed to study design and data collection, and provided feedback on the paper. DT contributed to the design of the study, data collection, data analysis, development and confirmation of findings, conceptualization and revisions of the paper, and wrote the paper introduction.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward J. Rohn.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The research protocol was approved by the University of Michigan Medical School Institutional Review Board, protocol number HUM00126164 and HUM00125769. For the Netherlands, permission to execute the study was granted by the Board of Directors of De Hoogstraat after positive advice of the Institute Review Board on 27 July 2017. For Brazil, the research protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo in April 2018. Approbation number CAAE:283112917.3.0000.0068. For Australia, the project was approved by the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee on 14 June 2017 (project no 203/17). We certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers were followed during the course of this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rohn, E.J., Hakbijl-van der Wind, A.J., Post, M.W.M. et al. A cross-cultural mixed methods validation study of the spinal cord injury quality of life basic dataset (SCI QoL-BDS). Spinal Cord 60, 177–186 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00742-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00742-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links