We report the process of adaptation into Sinhala of a questionnaire given to mothers of twins to determine zygosity. Adaptation and validation was carried out in three stages. Firstly, we used a nominal group to translate the English version and to assess the extent of agreement (consensus measurement) on the appropriateness of the translation and resolve disagreement (consensus development). Secondly we used a qualitative interview with 25 mothers of twins. The three main stems of the translated questionnaire were used as a semi-structured interview, and the responses noted verbatim. These were categorised and analysed, and the translated full questionnaire was then presented as closed questions with fixed choice responses. The categorised responses generated during the qualitative interview were compared with the responses to the fixed choices in the full questionnaire. The third stage was the appraisal of the questionnaire by 17 bilingual parents of twins. The source and translated version of the questionnaire were given to them at least 3 days apart. The responses were rated and the total scores were computed to determine the zygosity. This step was carried out to measure the validity and reliability of the Sinhala version. A perfect correlation between the original and adapted version was obtained, with a kappa of 1. The results suggest that the Sinhala version of the questionnaire is conceptually equivalent to the original questionnaire. Comparison of the zygosity determination by using this adapted questionnaire with results from analysis of genetic markers on Sri Lankan twins is needed for final validation of the translated questionnaire. Twin Research (2000) 3, 205–212.

Objectives: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Conference (CDC) was instituted to provide evidence-based guidance on controversial medical issues to researchers, health practitioners, and the public; however, the degree of impact this activity has on stimulating relevant research is unclear. This study examines the impact of CDC statements on the initiation of related NIH-funded research projects.

Methods: Six CDCs from 1998 to 2001 were examined. Research initiatives related to the Conferences' topics were collected through two discrete methods: (i) the overall number of relevant pre- and postconference research activities was compiled using NIH's Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination II (IMPAC II) and the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) grant application and award databases; (ii) for each CDC, the sponsoring institute's conference coordinator and other identified Program Directors were queried for their knowledge of new conference-specific research initiatives sponsored by their institute. The main outcome measure was the total number of requests for applications, requests for proposals, program announcements, broad agency announcements, notices, and funded investigator-initiated research program grants (RO1s) for a given Consensus topic in the 3 years before (baseline measure) and following (measure of impact) a CDC.

Results: As identified through NIH's IMPAC II and DHHS' CRISP grants and announcements databases, the total number of relevant postconference research initiatives increased for five of six CDCs when compared with baseline activity levels; research activities remained constant for the sixth. When inclusion criteria were restricted to institute-identified research initiatives, two of six CDC topics had overall increases in relevant research activity in the postconference period.

Conclusions: CDCs appear to have a positive impact on the stimulation of related NIH-funded research initiatives. Future outcomes evaluations using prospective data collection methods and more robust participation by sponsoring and cosponsoring institutes should strengthen the reliability of the association between new research initiatives on a given topic and their causal relationship to a given CDC.