CoDAS
http://www.codas.periodikos.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/e20240198pt
CoDAS
Brief Communication

Deafness and Additional Disabilities Questionnaire: tradução e adaptação cultural para o português brasileiro

Deafness and Additional Disabilities Questionnaire: translation and cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese

Vanessa Luisa Destro Fidêncio; Camila Rodrigues Cavalcante Arruda; Tatiane Franciele de Almeida; Anacleia Melo da Silva Hilgenberg

Downloads: 0
Views: 25

Resumo

RESUMO: Objetivo: Traduzir e adaptar culturalmente o instrumento Deafness and Additional Disabilities Questionnaire (DAD-Q) para o Português Brasileiro.

Método: Realizou-se a tradução, retrotradução, revisão por comitê de especialistas e adaptação cultural. Para a adaptação cultural, participaram 11 mães de crianças surdas com deficiências adicionais, usuárias de implante coclear. A confiabilidade do instrumento traduzido foi estimada utilizando-se a análise de consistência interna (Alfa de Cronbach). Adotou-se como equivalência a ausência de dificuldade de compreensão das questões por, no mínimo, 80% das participantes. As participantes também classificaram a dificuldade em responder à versão no português brasileiro do instrumento e o tempo de aplicação.

Resultados: As divergências na tradução foram resolvidas pelo comitê de especialistas e 100% das participantes afirmaram compreender todas as questões do instrumento, sem dificuldades. O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach demonstrou consistência interna quase perfeita do instrumento e substancial nos demais domínios. A maioria das participantes classificou o instrumento como “muito fácil” e “rápido” de responder.

Conclusão: O instrumento DAD-Q foi traduzido e adaptado para o Português Brasileiro, resultando no “Questionário de Surdez e Deficiências Adicionais (DADQ-PT)”.

Palavras-chave

Inquéritos e Questionários, Tradução, Implante Coclear, Criança, Comorbidade

Abstract

Purpose  Translate and culturally adapt the Deafness and Additional Disabilities Questionnaire (DAD-Q) into Brazilian Portuguese.

Methods  Translation, back-translation, review by an expert committee, and cultural adaptation were conducted. For the cultural adaptation, 11 mothers of deaf children with additional disabilities, who use cochlear implants, participated. The reliability of the translated instrument was estimated using internal consistency analysis (Cronbach's Alpha). Equivalence was defined as the absence of difficulty in understanding the questions by at least 80% of the participants. The participants also rated the difficulty in responding to the Brazilian Portuguese version of the instrument and the time required for its application.

Results  The discrepancies in the translation were resolved by the expert committee, and 100% of the participants reported understanding all the questions in the instrument without difficulty. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient demonstrated nearly perfect internal consistency for the instrument and substantial consistency in the other domains. Most participants rated the instrument as "very easy" and "quick" to respond to.

Conclusion  The DAD-Q instrument was translated and adapted into Brazilian Portuguese, resulting in the Questionário de Surdez e Deficiências Adicionais (DADQ-PT).

Keywords

Surveys and Questionnaires; Translation; Cochlear Implantation; Child; Comorbidity

Referencias

1 Naples JG, Ruckenstein MJ. Cochlear implant. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2020;53(1):87-102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2019.09.004. PMid:31677740.

2 Sharma SD, Cushing SL, Papsin BC, Gordon KA. Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: a review of the literature. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;133:109984. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109984. PMid:32203759.

3 Fidêncio VLD, Silva JM, Souza TM, Vicente LC, Ribeiro CC, Lüders D. Evaluation and results of children with autism spectrum disorder using cochlear implants: na integrative review. Rev CEFAC. 2023;25(5):e5223. http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20232555223.

4 Glaubitz C, Liebscher T, Hoppe U. Children with cochlear implant and additional disabilities benefit from consistent device use. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;162:111301. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111301. PMid:36096038.

5 Jethanamest D, Choudhury B. Choudhury. Special populations in implantable auditory devices: developmentally challenged and additional disabilities. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2019;52(2):341-7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2018.11.010. PMid:30765094.

6 Ueda CHY, Magalhães ATM, Sadowski T, Tsuji RK, Goffi-Gomez MVS. Development of children’s auditory skills in the first year after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant. Audiol Commun Res. 2022;27:e2491. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2021-2491en.

7 Olivier N, Shepherd DA, Smith L, Carew P, Paxton GA, Downie L, et al. Etiology, comorbidities, and health service use in a clinical cohort of children with hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2022;43(6):1836-44. http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001253. PMid:35943238.

8 Teagle HFB, Park LR, Brown KD, Zdanski C, Pillsbury HC. Pediatric cochlear implantation: a quarter century in review. Cochlear Implants Int. 2019;20(6):288-98. http://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2019.1655868. PMid:31429672.

9 Palmieri M, Berrettini S, Forli F, Trevisi P, Genovese E, Chilosi AM, et al. Evaluating benefits of cochlear implantation in deaf children with additional disabilities. Ear Hear. 2012;33(6):721-30. http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31825b1a69. PMid:22785571.

10 Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Crosscultural adaptation of health related quality of life measures:literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32. http://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N. PMid:8263569.

11 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. http://doi.org/10.2307/2529310. PMid:843571.

12 Purcell PL, Deep NL, Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr, Cushing SL, Papsin BC, et al. Cochlear implantation in infants: why and how. Trends Hear. 2021;25:1-10. http://doi.org/10.1177/23312165211031751. PMid:34281434.

13 Castiquini EAT. Escala de integração auditiva significativa: procedimento adaptado para a avaliação da percepção da fala [dissertação]. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica; 1998.

14 Leandro FSM, Costa EC, Mendes BCA, Novaes BCAC. LittlEars® – Questionário auditivo: adaptação semântica e cultural da versão em Português Brasileiro em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva. Audiol Commun Res. 2016;21(0):e1640. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2015-1640.

15 Nascimento LT. Uma Proposta de Avaliação da Linguagem Oral [monografia]. Bauru: Hospital de Pesquisa e Reabilitação de Lesões Lábio-Palatais; 1997.

16 Mathew R, Bryan J, Chaudhry D, Chaudhry A, Kuhn I, Tysome J, et al. Cochlear implantation in children with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(1):e1-13. http://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003353. PMid:34739429.
 

680cfed8a9539518cd16cae4 codas Articles

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections