Translating Tests with the International Test Commission's Guidelines: Keeping Validity in Mind
Abstract
Summary: Translation of psychological tests developed and normed in other countries appears to be a common practice in countries that, like Canada, recognize more than one official languages or have among their population considerable cultural groups whose mother tongue is not the official language. In such situations, rigorous assessment of the equivalence of the original and translated versions of the test is essential, in particular when translated test versions are scored using original test norms. This article, based upon a research project aimed toward establishment of double (for French and English Canadians) Canadian norms of the CPI-434 (Gough, 1996), describes how the Guidelines for adapting tests, developed by the International Tests Commission, allow one to consider the process of equivalence assessment of a translated test as being similar in nature to the collection of construct validity evidence of a test. From this perspective, and in line with the Guidelines, a translation method focused on the judgmental assessment of conceptual and linguistic equivalence of translated tests is proposed and discussed.
References
References
Beal, A.L. (1988). Canadian content in the Wisc-R: Bias or jingoism?. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 20, 154– 166Bertrand, R. Jeanrie, Ch. (1994). Le rôle des théories modernes dans la résolution des problèmes de mesure. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 17, 2 1– 19Bracken, B.A. Barona, A. (1991). State of the art procedures for translating, validating and using psychoeducational tests in cross-cultural assessment. School Psychology International, 12, 119– 132Brislin, R.W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185– 216Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Newbury Park, CA: SageCamilli, G. Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased tests items . Thousand Oaks, CA: SageCyr, J. Atkinson, L. (1987). Test item bias in the WISC-R. Canadian Journal of Behaviourial Science, 19, 101– 107Drasgow, F. Hulin, C.L. (1987). Cross-cultural measurement. Revista Interamerica de Psychologia, 21, 1-2 1– 24Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304– 312Gough, H.G. (1956). (1987). (1994). California Psychological Inventory . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist PressGough, G.H. Bradley, P. (1996). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists PressHambleton, R.K. (1993). Translating achievement test for use in cross-national studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 57– 68Hambleton, R.K. (1996, April). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests . Paper presented at the NCME convention, New YorkHambleton, R.K. Bollwark, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 3– 32Hambleton, R.K. Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 147– 160Helms-Lorenz, M. van de Vijver, F.J.R. (1995). Cognitive assessment in education in a multicultural society. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 158– 169Jeanrie, Ch. Bertrand, R. Méthot, N. (1998, August). Conceptual equivalence of translated tests: A judgmental approach . Paper presented at the XXVIIth Convention of the International Association of Applied Psychology, San FranciscoLonner, W.J. (1985). Issues in testing and assessment in cross-cultural counseling. The Counseling Psychologist, 13, 599– 614Lonner, W.J. (1990). An overview of cross-cultural testing and assessments. In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 56-76). Newbury Park, CA: SageMarsella, A.J. Leong, F.T.L. (1995). Cross-cultural Issues in personality and career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 202– 218Matsumoto, D. (1994). Cultural influences on research methods and statistics . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ColeMéthot, N. (1998). L'établissement d'une méthode jugementale de traduction des tests . Unpublished Master's essay, Laval University, Quebec City, CanadaMoreland, K.L. (1996). Persistent issues in multicultural assessment of social and emotional functioning. In L.A. Suzuki, P.J. Mueller, & J.G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment (pp. 51-76). San Francisco: Jossey BassPaunonen, S.V. Ashton, M.C. (1998). The structured assessment of personality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 150– 170Poortinga, Y.H. (1995). Cultural bias in assessment: Historical and thematic issues. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 140– 146Traub, R.E. Maraun, M. (1994). La mesure en éducation au Canada: Le passé, le présent et l'avenir. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 17, 2 21– 47van de Vijver, F.J.R. Hambleton, R.K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89– 99van de Vijver, F.J.R. Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
