Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To support the robust psychometric evaluation of quality of life (QoL) in veterinary medicine, several Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) were developed and validated for use in companion animal clinical research, including disease-specific Canine Dermatology Quality of Life (CDQoL), the Canine Osteoarthritis Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction (CaOA-QOL-TS), and the generic VetMetrica™ HRQL portfolio for dogs and cats. These COAs capture multi-domain constructs such as physical wellbeing, affective state, functional ability, pain indicators and caregiver burden. As companion animal health represents an expanding industry segment, driven by the strong owner engagement, these instruments are increasingly used in multinational clinical trials, raising a key question: to what extent should linguistic validation (LV) processes for animal and owner-reported outcomes meet the same standards of robustness as human COAs?
METHODS: LV of the feline and canine HRQL instruments listed above was conducted in 20+ languages and countries. An in-country Linguistic Validation Consultant (LVC) led a standardized process aligned with ISPOR recommendations:

1. Two independent forward translations
2. Reconciliation by the LVC
3. Back-translation into English
4. Review against the source
5. Cognitive debriefing interviews with five dog/cat owners
6. Proofreading and finalization

A concept definition list was developed to ensure conceptual equivalence and cross-language consistency.
RESULTS: Most translated items were well understood across target populations. A subset required rewording to ensure conceptual clarity and cultural appropriateness. Cognitive debriefing confirmed that owners could interpret items correctly and provide relevant feedback on their pets’ conditions, behavior, and impacts on their own lives; it was essential for identifying ambiguities and validating terminology related to animal behavior and owner experience. A concept list improved cross-language harmonization and preserved the questionnaire intent.
CONCLUSIONS: This work elevates veterinary HRQL to human-trial rigor, showing COA-equivalent linguistic validation applies, preserving animal-owner conceptual equivalence and supporting robust, regulatory-grade endpoints for evidence-based outcomes research.