Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of
assessment instruments
Cross-cultural adaptation
Why and when Translation/Adaptation is required?
Translation and Adaptation of assessment instruments for new target populations is generally
required when the new target population differs appreciably from the original population with
which the assessment device is used in terms of culture or cultural background, country, and
language.
Most cross-cultural adaptations of assessment instruments involve the translation of an
instrument from one language into another.
In some instances, however, adaptations of assessment instruments are needed even when the
language remains the same, because the culture or life experiences of those speaking the same
language differ.
Example: The Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory-Adolescent [MMPI-A], for example,
is an adaptation of the MMPI-2 developed to be used with adolescents, whose life experiences
systematically differ from those of adults.
Few guidelines regarding test adaptations have been developed by The International Test
Commission in collaboration with many related organizations.
Procedures for Adapting Assessment Measures for New Populations
Anytime a measure is simply used with a population that differs qualitatively from the one for
which it was originally developed, one must check its continued validity and usefulness in that
new population, even if the test itself remains unchanged.
Does a Given Measure Need to Be Adapted?
An early decision to be made is whether or not an assessment device actually needs to be
adapted for a new intended use.
A measure that has been developed with students from Pennsylvania State University
would not likely need to be adapted if it were to be administered to students from the University
of North Carolina, for example. (However, if it were found that some items on the instrument
used local vernacular or were based on information known only to residents of central
Pennsylvania, then some minor accommodations would be needed.)
At the other extreme, when one wishes to administer a measure to individuals who cannot
communicate in the language in which the measure was originally written, then the measure
obviously must be translated. Indeed, such a translation or adaptation must typically consider
cultural as well as language differences between the original and the target populations.
The Adaptations of the MMPI for Turkey, Hong Kong, Greece, and Chile serve as
excellent examples of both language and cultural adaptations of that particular measure
(Geisinger, 1994).
Steps for Adapting a Measure
In some cases, all of the steps provided below would be required. In other situations,
either additional steps would be recommended. Cross-cultural adaptation procedures involve
following steps:
Initial translation Synthesis of translations
Back translation Synthesis of translations
Evaluation by an expert committee
Testing of the translated versions
These steps focus on gaining conceptual, semantic, idiomatic, experiential and operational
equivalences, in addition to content validity.
1. Translate and adapt the measure:
Sometimes an instrument can be translated or adapted on a question-by-question basis. At
other times, it must be adapted and translated only in concept. A personality inventory item
that asks an adolescent whether he or she prefers going to watch a movie or to attend a dance
will make little sense to an individual from a non-Western, developing country.
Those translating or adapting an assessment instrument must be fluent in both languages,
extremely knowledgeable about both cultures, and expert in both the characteristics and the
content measured on the instrument and the uses to which the assessment instrument will be
put.
{ Back transition was once the technique of choice in test translation. In this procedure,
an original translation would render items from the original version of the instrument to the
second language, and a second translator—one not familiar with the instrument—would
translate the instrument back into the original language. This second translation would be
compared with the original version of the instrument.}
2. Review the translated or adapted version of the instrument
Rather than perform a back translation, a more effective technique to ensure that the
translation or adaptation has been conducted appropriately is to use a group of individuals
meeting the same criteria as the test translator (as described in Step 1) to review carefully the
quality of the translation or the adaptation.
They will be required to do : (a) review the items and react in writing, (b) share their
comments with one another, and (c) meet to consider the points made by each other and to
reconcile any differences of opinion.
3. Adapt the draft instrument on the basis of the comments of the reviewers.
The original test translator or adapter needs to consider the comments made by the panel
of experts described in Step 2. The translator or adapter can then meet with the panel to
explain the reasons for drafting the instrument in the manner used. Similarly, the panel can
explain why they reacted to the draft as they did. The final instrument will reflect the best
judgment of the entire group.
4. Pilot test the instrument.
A few trial administrations of the assessment device should be made simply to learn of
the potential problems faced by those responding to the assessment instrument. At this time,
a small sample of individuals comparable to the target population should be identified;
administered the assessment device; and then interviewed as to the understand the
instructions, acceptability of the time limits, wording of the items, and so on. The instrument
should be changed in light of these early findings.
5. Field test the instrument.
Once pilot testing has been performed and the instrument is revised accordingly, it is
ready to be field tested. At this stage, the instrument is administered to a large sample
representative of the eventual population to be assessed with the instrument.
This stage can also be performed in several waves, number of initial analyses should be
performed with the data collected.
Internal consistency reliability analyses should be performed, for example.
If possible, test-retest reliability analyses also should be included in this phase of the
instrument adaptation process.
Comparisons should be made with the corresponding results of the instrument in the
original language or culture. It is also possible to compare performance on individual
items, in comparison with data collected with the original instrument in the country of
its origin.
6. Standardize the scores.
It Involves equating scores of translated version them with scores on the original version.
Most instruments that are translated or adapted for use with a new population, use a standard
scale such as the T scale (Mean of 50, standard deviation of 10) to present their scores. Using
data from the field testing, if the sample is large enough (probably at least 750-1,000
participants, depending on how many subgroups in the population need adequate
representation), it probably is possible to perform a standardization. If the sample is not large
enough or fully representative, then collection of a new standardization sample is needed.
7- Perform validation research as appropriate.
Validation will be achieved if the Information on the research confirms that:
(a) An assessment device measures the same qualities in both languages or versions and (b)
the new version continues to provide scores that are interpretable in the manner proposed.
8. Develop a manual for the users of the assessment device.
Test developers have a responsibility to provide evidence regarding reliability and
validity for stated test purposes, as well as manuals and norms, when appropriate, to guide proper
interpretation.
Thus interpretation of any score on an assessment device (Instrument) is dependent on
many kinds of information. Such as,
Validation and reliability information are critical to test interpretation.
Normative information carries meaning to a professional regarding the placement of an
individual within a population distribution of sample, permitting the professional to
interpret the likely meaning of the score.
