Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version of the Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI): Structural Validity, Construct Validity, Internal Consistency, and Test-retest Reliability

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER


1 School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

2 Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada- Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada

4 Spiritwood and District Health Complex, Spiritwood, SK, Canada

5 Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

6 Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Tehran, Iran


Background: The Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) is a generic importance-weighted health satisfaction tool to measure the process and state of recovery following musculoskeletal injuries. The objectives of this study are (1) to translate and cross-culturally adapt the SRI to Persian and (2) evaluate its psychometric properties.
Methods: The forward-backward translation technique was used for translation, and two rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted to assess cultural appropriateness. Participants (n=100, mean age=32.5, 82%male) had acute (i.e.,<30 days) musculoskeletal injuries of any etiology. Structural validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and testretest reliability were evaluated.
Results: Participants identified issues in 3/6 areas of a coding system during the cognitive interviews: comprehension/clarity, relevance, and inadequate response definition. These issues informed subsequent changes to arrive at the final version of the SRI-P. The SRI-P had adequate construct validity (P<0.001), the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a two-factor structure, the internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s α=0.83), and it was deemed reliable (ICC2, 1=0.72).
Conclusion: The psychometric evaluation revealed that the SRI-P has adequate construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Unlike the original English version, the SRI-P has a two-factor structure, which appears to be related to cultural differences in interpreting some of the items. The clinical importance of this study is that the SRI (which captures the state of recovery and how important the various items of the tool are to each patient and how satisfied they are with their recovery) can now be available to surgeons and therapists in the orthopedic and rehabilitation realms in Persian populations.
Level of evidence: II


Main Subjects

1. Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: a conceptual
framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc
Sci Med. 2000;51(7):1087-1110. doi:10.1016/s0277-
2. Lyman S, Hidaka C. Patient-Reported Outcome
Measures-What Data Do We Really Need? J
Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1144-1147. doi:10.1016/j.
3. Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing
patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care
clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators
and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158-175.
4. Walton DM, Macdermid JC, Nielson W. Recovery
from acute injury: Clinical, methodological and
philosophical considerations. Disabil Rehabil.
2010;32(10). doi:10.3109/09638280903349511
5. Walton D. A review of the definitions of “recovery”
used in prognostic studies on whiplash using an ICF
framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(12):943-957.
6. Walton DM, MacDermid JC, Pulickal M, Rollack
A, Veitch J. Development and Initial Validation
of the Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) for
Measurement of Recovery from Musculoskeletal
Trauma. Open Orthop J. 2014;8:316-325.
7. Modarresi S, Walton DM. Reliability, discriminative
accuracy, and an exploration of response shift
as measured using the satisfaction and Recovery
Index over 12 months from musculoskeletal
trauma. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;51:102300.
8. Majedi H, Dehghani SS, Soleyman-Jahi S, et al.
Validation of the Persian Version of the Brief
Pain Inventory (BPI-P) in Chronic Pain Patients. J
Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(1):132-138.e2.
9. Stanhope J. Brief Pain Inventory review. Occup Med
(Lond). 2016;66(6):496-497. doi:10.1093/occmed/
10.Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB.
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation
of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-
11.Willis GB,eds. Cognitive Interviewing A Tool for
Improving Questionnaire Design.1st ed. Sage
Publications; 2004.
12.Furtado R, MacDermid JC, Bryant DM, Faber KJ, Athwal
GS. Interpretation and content validity of the items of
the numeric rating version short-WORC to evaluate
outcomes in management of rotator cuff pathology:
a cognitive interview approach. Health Qual Life
Outcomes. 2020;18(1):88. doi:10.1186/s12955-020-
13.MacDermid J. Cognitive interviewing (CI)-to identify
sources of interpretation dissonance in in patientreported outcome measures (PRO). Lawson Research
Institute. 2018:487-500.
14.Modarresi S, Modarresi G, Farzad M, et al. Translation
and cross-cultural adaptation of the Traumatic Injuries
Distress Scale to Persian. J Adv Med Sci Appl Technol.
2021. doi:10.30476/jamsat.2021.89502.1017
15.Mehta SP, Mhatre B, MacDermid JC, Mehta A. Crosscultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the
Hindi version of the patient-rated wrist evaluation. J
Hand Ther. 2012;25(1):65-77; quiz 78. doi:10.1016/j.
16.Dancey C, Reidy J,eds. Statistics Without Maths for
Psychology.5st ed. London: Pearson; 2017.
17.Jamil NI, Baharuddin FN, Sulaiman TT, Rosle AN,
Harun AF. Exploratory Factor Analysis-Key to a
Successful Mentoring Relationship. Journal of
Advanced Research in Business and Management
Studies. 2020 23;2(1):11-21.
18.Glorfeld LW. An Improvement on Horn’s Parallel Analysis
Methodology for Selecting the Correct Number of
Factors to Retain. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(3):377-
393. doi:10.1177/0013164495055003002
19.Çokluk Bökeoğlu Ö� , Koçak D. Using Horn’s Parallel
Analysis Method in Exploratory Factor Analysis
for Determining the Number of Factors. Educ Sci
Theory Pract. 2016;16:537-551. doi:10.12738/
20.Field A,eds. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS
Statistics. 5th ed. Sage; 2013.
21.DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and
Applications. 4th ed. Sage; 2016.
22.Costello AB, Osborne J. Best Practices in Exploratory
Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting
the Most From Your Analysis. Pract Assessment, Res
Eval. 2005;10:1-9.
23.Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P. Determining the number
of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer
program for carrying out parallel analysis. Pract
Assessment, Res Eval. 2007;12(1):2.
24.Browne MW, Cudeck R, Bollen KA, Long JS. Testing
Structural Equation Models. 1993:136-62
25.Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-246. doi:
26.Brown JD. The Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimate.
Shiken JALT Test Eval SIG Newsl. 2002;6(1):17-19.
27.De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL,eds.
Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
28.Fleissm JL, Levin B, Paik MC,eds. Statistical Methods
for Rates and Proportions.1st ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.; 2003.
29.Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Crosscultural adaptation of health-related quality of
life measures: literature review and proposed
guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-1432.
doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n 30.Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN
Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual life Res.
2018;27(5):1171-1179. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-
31.Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s
alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-55. doi:10.5116/