↓ Skip to main content

Danish translation, cultural adaption and initial psychometric evaluation of the patient feedback form

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
6 tweeters
1 Facebook page
1 Redditor


12 Dimensions

Readers on

56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Danish translation, cultural adaption and initial psychometric evaluation of the patient feedback form
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0900-4
Pubmed ID

Lærke K. Tolstrup, Helle Pappot, Graziella Zangger, Lars Bastholt, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Karin B. Dieperink


No suitable Danish questionnaire exists to evaluate patient satisfaction with various patient reported outcome measures. Thus, the aim of this research project was to conduct a study on the translation and cultural adaption of an American patient reported experience measures questionnaire, "Patient Feedback Form", among Danish patients, and to examine selected psychometric properties within reliability. In the first phase of the study, the Patient Feedback Form was forward and backward translated following the methodology of existing guidelines. Subsequently, cognitive interviewing was performed with seven cancer patients and seven healthy persons (19-86 years old/6 men and 8 women) to ensure that questions were easy to understand and made sense to Danish interviewees. In the second phase, phone interviews were carried out with 95 prostate cancer patients after they had responded to the same Patient Feedback Form. Missing data was imputed using the Expectation-Maximization technique. To examine the structure of the questionnaire, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to investigate internal consistency. There were only minor disagreements in the translation process, and the reconciliation went smoothly (phase 1). With regard to one item, however, it was difficult to reach a consensus. Through the qualitative validation process, the right solution was found. The results from the psychometric testing (phase 2) showed that four factors had an Eigen value > 1, but only one factor was extracted as the Scree plot had a clear "elbow", showing a one factor structure that explained 46.1% of the variance. The internal consistency was high as Cronbach's alpha was 0.89. The translated, culturally adapted, and validated version of the Patient Feedback Form seems to be suitable for measuring satisfaction with patient reported outcome measures in a Danish setting. While the results should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, psychometric testing indicates that the questionnaire is a valid instrument. However, additional psychometric testing such as hypotheses testing, responsiveness, and test-retest on a larger and more diverse sample size is required to further verify the validity of the instrument.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 2 4%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 20 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 278,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them