Validates locomotive syndrome evaluation tools for older adults, indicating effective cultural adaptation.
Background: Locomotive syndrome (LS) is a condition that affects mobility and quality of life in older adults, necessitating reliable screening and assessment tools. Accurate translation of these health-related questionnaires is crucial for cross-cultural research. Combing Brislin’s translation model with the Delphi method ensures both linguistic accuracy and cultural relevance. Objectives: This study aims to translate the loco-check self-completed questionnaire (Loco-check) and the 25-question geriatric locomotive function scale (GLFS-25) into Mandarin Chinese, ensuring that the translation versions are both effective and suitable for use in a different cultural context. Methods: The study included three rounds of Delphi surveys with a panel of 10 experts experienced in older adult care. Translation equivalence was assessed using the translation validity index and content validity. The factorial structure and the reliability of the translated version were assessed using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and internal consistency method, respectively. Results: The translated versions demonstrated high internal consistency reliability in both tools. Three items of the GLFS-25 were deleted during EFA, and five factors were extracted from the remaining items. The reliability of the Loco-check and GLFS-25 confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86 and 0.95, respectively. Conclusion: The integration of Brislin’s translation model with the Delphi method proved effective in translation and adapting the locomotive evaluation scales into Mandarin Chinese. The high reliability and validity of the translated instruments support their use in cross-cultural research to assess LS in older adults. This approach can serve as a model for future translation and validation efforts in health-related research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hsu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: