↓ Skip to main content

Translating and culturally adapting the shortened version of the Hospital Ethical Climate Survey (HECS-S) – retaining or modifying validated instruments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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.
Title
Translating and culturally adapting the shortened version of the Hospital Ethical Climate Survey (HECS-S) – retaining or modifying validated instruments
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0274-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pernilla Pergert, Cecilia Bartholdson, Marika Wenemark, Kim Lützén, Margareta af Sandeberg

Abstract

The Hospital Ethical Climate Survey (HECS) was developed in the USA and later shortened (HECS-S). HECS has previously been translated into Swedish and the aim of this study was to describe a process of translating and culturally adapting HECS-S and to develop a Swedish multi-professional version, relevant for paediatrics. Another aim was to describe decisions about retaining versus modifying the questionnaire in order to keep the Swedish version as close as possible to the original while achieving a good functional level and trustworthiness. In HECS-S, the respondents are asked to indicate the veracity of statements. In HECS and HECS-S the labels of the scale range from 'almost never true' to 'almost always true'; while the Swedish HECS labels range from 'never' to 'always'. The procedure of translating and culturally adapting the Swedish version followed the scientific structure of guidelines. Three focus group interviews and three cognitive interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals. Furthermore, descriptive data were used from a previous study with healthcare professionals (n = 89), employing a modified Swedish HECS. Decisions on retaining or modifying items were made in a review group. The Swedish HECS-S consists of 21 items including all 14 items from HECS-S and items added to develop a multi-professional version, relevant for paediatrics. The descriptive data showed that few respondents selected 'never' and 'always'. To obtain a more even distribution of responses and keep Swedish HECS-S close to HECS-S, the original labels were retained. Linguistic adjustments were made to retain the intended meaning of the original items. The word 'respect' was used in HECS-S with two different meanings and was replaced in one of these because participants were concerned that respecting patients' wishes implied always complying with them. The process of developing a Swedish HECS-S included decisions on whether to retain or modify. Only minor adjustments were needed to achieve a good functional level and trustworthiness although some items needed to be added. Adjustments made could be used to also improve the English HECS-S. The results shed further light on the need to continuously evaluate even validated instruments and adapt them before use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Lecturer 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 14 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,784,451
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#396
of 996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,203
of 326,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#15
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 326,024 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.