# Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Global Rating of Change in Tibetan musculoskeletal trauma patients

## TL;DR

This paper translates and validates pain and change rating scales for Tibetan patients to improve healthcare communication.

## Contribution

The study provides culturally adapted and validated Tibetan versions of NPRS and GRoC for musculoskeletal trauma patients.

## Key findings

- NPRS-Tib and GRoC-Tib showed excellent test-retest reliability and content validity.
- A weak but significant correlation was found between NPRS-Tib and GRoC-Tib scores.
- Challenges included translation discrepancies and lack of criterion validity tools in Tibetan.

## Abstract

Tibetan-speaking patients seeking care in predominantly Mandarin-speaking healthcare settings frequently face communication barriers, leading to potential disparities and difficulties in accessing care. To address this issue, we translated, culturally adapted, and validated the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Global Rating of Change (GRoC) into Tibetan (NPRS-Tib and GRoC-Tib), aiming to facilitate cross-linguistic and cross-cultural interactions while examining potential challenges in the adaptation process. Using standard translation-backward translation methods, expert review, pilot testing, and validation through a cross-sectional study with a short-term longitudinal component, we engaged 100 Tibetan patients with musculoskeletal trauma for psychometric validation, including 37 women (aged 22–60 years, mean age 39.1 years). The NPRS-Tib and GRoC-Tib exhibited outstanding psychometric properties, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.983 for NPRS-Tib indicating superb test–retest reliability, and expert review confirming good content validity for both instruments. A Spearman's correlation coefficient (Rho) of -0.261 (P = 0.0087) revealed a significant, albeit weak, correlation between changes in NPRS-Tib scores and GRoC-Tib scores. The adaptation process also presented notable challenges, including translation discrepancies from translators' diverse backgrounds and levels of expertise, ambiguity in scale options, and the lack of established tools for criterion validity assessment in Tibetan.