Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and ICU Mobility Scale: translation into Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil

• Autor(a) principal: Kawaguchi,Yurika Maria Fogaça
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Outros Autores: Nawa,Ricardo Kenji, Figueiredo,Thais Borgheti, Martins,Lourdes, Pires-Neto,Ruy Camargo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-37132016000600429
• topic: Physical therapy modalities; Intensive care units; Translations; Validation studies

ABSTRACT Objective: To translate the Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) into Portuguese, creating versions that are cross-culturally adapted for use in Brazil, and to determine the interobserver agreement and reliability for both versions. Methods: The processes of translation and cross-cultural validation consisted in the following: preparation, translation, reconciliation, synthesis, back-translation, review, approval, and pre-test. The Portuguese-language versions of both instruments were then used by two researchers to evaluate critically ill ICU patients. Weighted kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots were used in order to verify interobserver agreement for the two instruments. In each of the domains of the instruments, interobserver reliability was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The correlation between the instruments was assessed by Spearman's correlation test. Results: The study sample comprised 103 patients-56 (54%) of whom were male-with a mean age of 52 ± 18 years. The main reason for ICU admission (in 44%) was respiratory failure. Both instruments showed excellent interobserver agreement ( > 0.90) and reliability ( > 0.90) in all domains. Interobserver bias was low for the IMS and the Perme Score (−0.048 ± 0.350 and −0.06 ± 0.73, respectively). The 95% CIs for the same instruments ranged from −0.73 to 0.64 and −1.50 to 1.36, respectively. There was also a strong positive correlation between the two instruments (r = 0.941; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In their versions adapted for use in Brazil, both instruments showed high interobserver agreement and reliability.