BACKGROUND: Hospitalization can be hazardous for older people, but most hospitals in Europe are not prepared to meet the unique needs of older adult inpatients. Adaptations of the physical environment, care processes, and staff knowledge and skills in geriatric care are essential to improve the quality of care for older people. An assessment of baseline organizational approaches to older adult care is an important first step toward recognizing the challenges organizations face when delivering acute care services to older adults and attempting to improve them. The Geriatric Institutional Assessment Profile could be a promising tool for this endeavor.
OBJECTIVES: To describe a systematic process implemented across seven countries and languages that sought to develop valid and culturally-appropriate translations of the Geriatric Institutional Assessment Profile.
DESIGN: Cross-cultural instrument translation and content validation study.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Expert review panels comprised of 68 practicing nurses from seven European or EU associated countries (Austria (German), Belgium (Dutch), Denmark (Danish), Israel (Hebrew), Poland (Polish), Switzerland (German, French), and Turkey (Turkish)) evaluated cross-cultural relevance, including translation, of the Geriatric Institutional Assessment Profile.
METHOD: A systematic approach to translating and validating a cross-cultural survey instrument, including back-to-back translation, adaptation, and evaluation of content validity using content validity indexing (CVI) techniques for each country and language, assessing translation and relevance content validity separately. The item, subscale and domain content validity index scores were calculated and adjusted for chance agreement among raters for all parts of the Geriatric Institutional Assessment Profile: the four subscales of geriatric care environment, the general knowledge about older adults subscale, and the clinical geriatric knowledge subscale. Consensus discussions among the raters then finalized translations.
RESULTS: CVI scores for relevance and translation were all in the "good" to "excellent" range. The geriatric care environment scale's CVI scores were 0.84 to 0.94 for relevance and 0.82 to 0.98 for translation. The clinical geriatric knowledge subscale's CVI scores were 0.83 to 0.97 for relevance and 0.94 to 0.98 for translation. The general knowledge about older adults subscale received high translation agreement (0.93 to 0.99) but slightly lower scores for relevance, ranging from 0.46 to 0.94.
CONCLUSION: Study results provided preliminary evidence of the applicability and validity of a multi-factor measure of age-friendly care in diverse health care systems, in German, Dutch, Danish, Hebrew, Polish, French, and Turkish languages.