Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment Tools: A Brazilian Perspective on Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

  • E. A. M. Freire
  • R. M. Ciconelli
Reference work entry


There has been increasing interest and investigation into the quality of life parameter in the assessment of chronic disease. There are no quality of life assessment instruments specific to Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the Portuguese language.

Therefore, we translated into Portuguese, culturally adapted and assessed the reliability and validity of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Quality of Life (SLEQOL) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Symptom Checklist (SSC) questionnaires.

We studied 107 patients with lupus (according to ACR criteria) over 16 years of age who responded to the SLEQOL, SSC and SF-36 during four visits over the course of 1 year with the aim of translating the instruments and determining their psychometric properties. Following the authorization from the respective authors, translation and cultural adaptation of the questionnaires into the Portuguese language was performed in accordance with studies on questionnaire translation methodology. Reliability was analyzed through three interviews with different interviewers: two on the same day (inter-observer) and a third interview conducted by one of the interviewers within 14 days of the first evaluation (intra-observer). Validity was assessed through correlations between clinical and quality of life parameters as assessed by the SLEQOL and SSC. Descriptive analysis was performed for the characterization of the sample. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility. Internal consistency of the items was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to study validity. The level of significance for all statistical tests was set at 5%.

The main results obtained for the SLEQOL were a 0.807 correlation coefficient for internal consistency for all questions and domains as well as a 0.990 inter-observer and 0.969 intra-observer correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficients for internal consistency, intra-observer reliability and inter-observer reliability for the SSC were 0.874, 0.925 and 0.917, respectively. In the validation, both the SLEQOL and the SSC demonstrated a moderate correlation with the SF-36, but a low correlation with disease activity and damage.

The SLEQOL and SSC are broad-based, easily administered questionnaires. The SLEQOL performs well in assessing physical symptoms and the mental status and wellbeing of patients. Both instruments are robust, exhibiting reliability and validity.


Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Damage Index Cultural Adaptation Brazilian Population Portuguese Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of Abbreviations:


American College of Rheumatology


anti-double strand deoxyribonucleic acid antibody


British Island Lupus Assessment Group


standard deviation


anti-nuclear antibody




systemic lupus erythmatosus


lupus quality of life


Mexican systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index


World Health Organization


Outcome measures in rheumatology clinical trials


patient-reported outcomes


quality of life


medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey


systemic lupus activity measure


systemic lupus erythematosus


systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index

Modified SLEDAI-2K

modified systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index


systemic lupus erythematosus needs questionnaire


systemic lupus erythematosus quality of life


systemic lupus international collaborating clinics/American College of Rheumatology – damage index


systemic lupus erythematosus symptom checklist


universidade federal da paraíba


Universidade Federal de São Paulo


  1. Barr SG, Zonana-Nacach A, et al. (1999). Arthritis Rheum. 42(12): 2682–2688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, et al. (1998). Recommendations for Cross-Cultural Adaptations of Health Status Measures. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Institute for Work and Health.Google Scholar
  3. Bombardier C, Gladman DD, et al. (1992). Arthritis Rheum. 35(6): 630–640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr AJ. (1996). Br J Rheumatol. 35(10): 921–932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciconelli R, Ferraz M, et al. (1999). Rev Bras Reumatol 39(3): 143–150.Google Scholar
  6. D’Amorim AB. (2001). Avaliação das formas auto-administráveis dos questionários MHAQ e SF-12 em pacientes com doenças reumatológicas. Tese de Mestrado. UNIFESP.Google Scholar
  7. Fallowfield LJ. (1992). Eur J Cancer. 28A(Suppl 1): S39–S41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferraz MB, Oliveira LM, et al. (1990). J Rheumatol. 17(6): 813–817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Freire EA, Maia IO, et al. (2007). Clin Rheumatol. 26(3): 423–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ginzler E, Berg A. (1987). J Rheumatol. Suppl 14(Suppl 13): 218–222.Google Scholar
  11. Gladman D, Ginzler E, et al. (1992). Arthritis Rheum. 39(3): 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, et al. (1997). Arthritis Rheum. 40(5): 809–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gladman DD, Goldsmith CH, et al. (2000). J Rheumatol. 27(2): 373–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gladman DD, Ibanez D, et al. (2002). J Rheumatol. 29(2): 288–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Grootscholten C, Ligtenberg G, et al. (2003). Qual Life Res. 12(6): 635–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, et al. (1993). J Clin Epidemiol. 46(12): 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, et al. (1993). Ann Intern Med. 118(8): 622–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Halioua B, Beumont MG, et al. (2000). Int J Dermatol. 39(11): 801–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hay EM, Bacon PA, et al. (1993). Q J Med. 86(7): 447–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hochberg MC, Boyd RE, et al. (1985). Medicine (Baltimore). 64(5): 285–295.Google Scholar
  21. Isenberg DA, Rahman A, et al. (2005). BILAG 2004. Development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for patients with systemic Iupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford). Jul; 44(7): 902–6. Epub 2005 Apr 6.Google Scholar
  22. Kong KO, Ho HJ, et al. (2007). Arthritis Rheum. 57(6): 980–985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leong KP, Kong KO, et al. (2004). Ann Acad Med Singapore. 33(Suppl 5): S35–S37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Leong KP, Kong KO, et al. (2005). Development and preliminary validation of systemic lupus erythematosus-specific quality-of-life instrument (SLEQOL). Rheumatology (Oxford). Oct; 44(10): 1267–76. Epub 2005 Mar 29.Google Scholar
  25. MacGowan JR, Ellis S, et al. (2002). Rheumatology (Oxford). 41(9): 981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McElhone K, Abbot J, et al. (2007). Arthritis Rheum. 57(6): 972–979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moses N, Wiggers J, et al. (2007). Qual Life Res. 16(3): 461–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pistiner M, Wallace DJ, et al. (1991). Semin Arthritis Rheum. 21(1): 55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sato EI, Ferraz M, et al. (1991). Rev Bras Reumatol. 31(4): 133–136.Google Scholar
  30. Snoek FJ, Pouwer F, et al. (2000). Diabetes Care. 23(9): 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swaak AJ, Nossent JC, et al. (1989). Ann Rheum Dis. 48(6): 447–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Testa MA. (1996). JAMA. 275(14): 1083; author reply 1084–1085.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Testa MA, Simonson DC. (1996). N Engl J Med. 334(13): 835–840.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uribe AG, Vila LM, et al. (2004). J Rheumatol. 31(10): 1934–1940.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ware JE Jr. (2007). Quality Metric Incorporated. SF-36. Health. Survey Update. Scholar
  36. Ware JE Jr, Bayliss MS, et al. (1996). JAMA. 276(13): 1039–1047.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson IB, Kaplan S. (1995). Med Care. 33(Suppl 4): AS209–AS214.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. A. M. Freire
  • R. M. Ciconelli

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations