Abstract
Increasingly, over the past 2 decades, there has been a growing interest in cross-national comparisons. This activity, in turn, has precipitated an escalating number of assessment scales being translated into other languages for use in countries and cultures that differ from those of the original scales (typically developed and normed in the United States). Recent criticism of these translated scales has highlighted the singularity of focus on linguistic equivalence albeit with little to no regard for equivalence of the measured constructs, relevance of item content, familiarity with item format, and insufficient rigor of the methodological strategy, thereby leading to serious biasing effects that ultimately yield a multiplicity of complexities in cross-national research and practice. Intended as an aid to researchers confronted with the task of translating and adapting an assessment scale for use in a country and culture that differs from that of the original scale, this article (a) highlights the critical importance of equivalence as it relates to the translated and adapted scale, in addition to the construct(s) it is designed to measure, (b) identifies the major threats to such equivalence and exemplifies several ways by which they can bias cross-national comparisons, (c) outlines a recommended series of psychometric analytic stages that can lead to both a close translation and a rigorously adapted assessment scale, (d) describes and explicates the hierarchical set of steps necessary in testing equivalence of the adapted instrument within and across national groups, and (e) presents the advantages and disadvantages of the adaptation approach recommended for use in this article.
References
(2012). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Icelandic Beliefs About Psychological Services Scale (IBAPS). International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, practice, Consultation, 1, 236–251. 10.1037/a0030854
(2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 495–508. 10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
(1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 199–228. 10.1080/00207596908247261
(1992). Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (MSCS). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
(1993). The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 197–212. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1993.tb00532.x
(2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.
(2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2012a). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
(2012b).
Choosing SEM computer software: Snapshots of LISREL, EQS, AMOS, and Mplus . In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 307–324). New York, NY: Guilford Press.(1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555–576. 10.1177/0022022199030005001
(1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
(2007). The Beck Depression Inventory II: Testing for measurement equivalence and factor mean differences across Hong Kong and American Adolescents. International Journal of Testing, 7, 293–309. 10.1080/15305050701438058
(2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107–132. 10.1080/15305051003637306
(2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155–175. 10.1177/0022022102250225
(2012). Mainstreaming culture in psychology. American Psychologist, 67, 721–730. 10.1037/a0029876
(2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the five-factor model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407–433. 10.1177/0022022101032004003
(2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603. 10.1037/a0022389
(2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of human values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods, 2, 33–46.
(1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312. 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304
(1989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivist to individualist. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 80–91. 10.1177/0022022189201005
Georgas, J.Berry, J. W.van de Vijver, F. J. R.Kaγitçibaşi, C.Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.). (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. New York, NY: Cambridge.
(2009). Some evidence for multidimensional biculturalism: Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance analysis on the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire-Short Version. Psychological Assessment, 21, 22–31. 10.1037/a0014495
(1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244.
(2005).
Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures . In R. K. HambletonP. F. MerendaC. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.(2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20, 127–134. 10.1191/0265532203lt247xx
(1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 147–157. 10.1027/1015-5759.11.3.147
(2011).
Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments . In D. MatsumotoF. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Harkness, J. A.van de Vijver, F. J. R.Mohler, P. P. (Eds.). (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
(2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). 10.9707/2307-0919.1111
(2015).
Cultural manifestation of intelligence in formal and informal learning environments during childhood . In L. A. Jansen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human development and culture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 214–229). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.(1996).
Filial piety and its psychological consequences . In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 155–165). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.(1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist’s look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. Southern Psychologist, 4, 179–188.
(1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296–309. 10.1177/0022022189203004
. (2005). International guidelines on test adaptation. Retrieved from http://www.intest.org/files/guidelines_test_adapt
(1991).
Cultural variation in the self-concept . In J. StraussG. R. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 18–48). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978-1-4684-8264-5_2(1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. 10.1007/BF02294825
(2011). Results of a cross-national structured cognitive interviewing protocol to test measures of disability. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 45, 801–815. 10.1007/s11135-010-9370-4
(2011). Social responsibility as a dimension of intelligence, and as an educational goal: Insights from programmatic research in an African Society. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 126–133. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00167.x
(2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptation: A methodological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 557–567. 10.1177/0022022106290478
(2013). Similarities and differences in implicit personality concepts across ethnocultural groups in South Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 365–388. 10.1177/0022022112443856
(2009, July). Translating and adapting psychological tests for large scale projects. Paper presented at the 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
(2011).
Capturing bias in structural equation modeling . In E. DavidovP. SchmidtJ. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.(2011).
Fundamental questions of cross-cultural psychology . In F. J. R. van de VijverA. ChasiotisS. M. Breugelmans (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 9–34). New York, NY: Cambridge.(1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99. 10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89
(1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2011).
Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures . In D. MatsumotoF. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 17–45). New York, NY: Cambridge.(2005).
Conceptual and methodological issues in adapting tests . In R. K. HambletonP. F. MerendaC. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 39–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.(2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology / Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 47, 263–279.
(1997). Bias and equivalence research in The Netherlands. European Review of Applied Psychology / Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 47, 319–329.
