Translation and Critical Evaluation of the Columbia University Autobiographical Memory Interview—Short Form for use in the Dutch Language

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Assessment of autobiographical memory following electroconvulsive therapy is lacking multilingual options. We therefore developed the Dutch translation of the Columbia University Autobiographical Memory Interview-Short Form (CUAMI-SF). We aimed to assess its practical use and identify segments for potential revision to improve the interview's applicability. METHODS: The CUAMI-SF comprises 30 questions asking details about 6 segments (eg, last trip, last birthday) and 7 question categories (eg, dates, list of persons present). The interview was translated to Dutch using blind back-translation principles. We evaluated practicality and potential redundancy, through surveying a focus group and quantitative analyses of 60 participants, including depressed patients treated with electroconvulsive therapy (n = 14) or deep brain stimulation (n = 25) and healthy controls (n = 21). For the quantitative analyses, we compared the average percentage of nonanswered questions at baseline between groups. The average consistency scores after a follow-up of approximately 6 weeks were also calculated and compared for each segment between the groups. RESULTS: The focus group mostly found the CUAMI-SF easy to use and to score, but argued redundancy in specific questions asking for dates, numbers, and addresses. The largest differences in consistency scores between the groups were present for the segments "travel," "birthdays," "New Year's Eve," and "doctor's visits," indicating higher sensitivity compared with "family member" and "job." DISCUSSION: The CUAMI-SF was found easy to use by administrators. The segments "family member" and "job" emerged as less sensitive. Therefore, removal might maintain sensitivity while reducing administration time, which could prove beneficial in clinical and research settings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.