This document outlines the stages of translating and adapting instruments across cultures and languages. It discusses: 1) Having documents translated independently by 2 translators and synthesizing the translations. 2) Evaluating the synthesized version with experts and the target population for comprehension. 3) Conducting back translations to check for consistency with the original. 4) Pilot testing the adapted instrument. 5) Validating the adapted instrument through statistical analyses like confirmatory factor analysis to ensure it measures the same constructs as reliably as the original. Cross-cultural validation is important for meaningful comparisons between groups.

1. TEST ADAPTATION
AMIT KUMAR SHUKLA
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY
VARANASI INDIA

2. Original
instrument
Translation
1
Translatio
n 2
Synthesized
translated
version
dsEvaluation by
committee of
experts.
fEvaluation by
target population
Adequat
e
Yes
No
Back
translation
Adjustme
nts

3. Back
translation
Back
translation 1
Back
translation 2
Synthesized
translated
version
Presentation of the new
version to the another of
the original instrument
Adequat
e
Yes No
Pilot
study
Discussion with the
author of the original
instrument

4. STAGES OF THE TRANSLATION PROCESS AND THE ADAPTATION OF
INSTRUMENTS
1) Instrument translation into the new
language:-
Translation from the source language to target
language
Final version should be consistent with
original version
An appropriate translation requires a balanced treatment of linguistic, cultural,
contextual & scientific information(tanzer2005)
the presence of at least two bilingual translators is now recommended for
completing this process, thereby minimizing the risk of linguistic, psychological,
cultural and both theoretical & practical understanding biases.(cassepp- borges
et.al. 2010)
Translator should be fully proficient in both language of interest & familiar with
the cultures associated with the respective language of each group.(Hambleton
1994, 2005)

5. Translator are expected to understand the construct and have to both scientific writing
skills and familiarity with subjects( cassepp-borges et. Al. 2000 & Hambleton1994, 2005.
2) Synthesis of the Translated
Versions:-
The researcher should have at least two version of the
translated instrument
In summarizing process, researcher compare the different translations & assesses their
semantic, idiomatic, conceptual, linguistic and contextual difference.
Two possible source of complication- A) complex translation that may hinder the
understanding of the population for whom the instrument is intended.
B) Overly the simplistic translation that underestimate the item content.
The committee should assesses the compatibility between the translated version and
original instrument in the 4 areas- A) semantic equivalence
B) idiomatic equivalence
C) experiential equivalence
D) conceptual equivalence

6. A) Semantic equivalence which aims to assess whether the words have the
same meaning, whether the item has more than one meaning and whether
there are grammatical errors.
B) Idiomatic equivalence which refers to assessing whether the items from
original instrument that are difficult to translate were changed into an
equivalent expression that has the cultural meaning of the item.
C) Experiential equivalence which refers to noting whether a particular item is
applicable in the new culture and, if not, replacing it with an equivalent item.
D) Conceptual equivalence which seeks to assess whether a given term or
expression, even if properly translated, assesses the same aspect in
different culture.

7. The choice of which versions to use must be made through consensus among the
judges, never by imposition.( Gjersing et. al., 2010.
When possible, an external observer should be prompted to transcribe the entire synthesis
process, especially regarding choice of items to be used.( Beaton et. al. 2000)
3) Evaluation of the Synthesized version by
Experts:-
Experts will assess important aspects such as structure, layout, instrument instructions and
both the scope and adequacy of expressions contain in items.
Aspects of instrument layout will also analyzed because they are as the indispensable as
linguistic aspects of the items.
The clarity of content, the suitability of font formats & sizes, the arrangement of
information on the instrument, inter alia are also analyzed.

8. 4) Evaluation by the Target
Population:-
This stage of the process aims to verify whether the items, the response scale & the
instructions are comprehensible for the target population.
This procedure aims to investigate whether the instructions are clear, whether the
terms found in items are appropriate, whether the expressions corresponds to those
used by groups.
The subjects who participate in this step may vary depending on the characteristics
of the respondent for whom the instrument is intended.
When a given item is not clear, the respondent is encouraged to provide synonyms
that best exemplify the vocabulary of the group for whom the instrument is intended.
The stage of the evaluation by the target population may be conducted one or more
times, depending on the need and the complexity of the instrument to be adapted.

9. 5) Back
translation:-
Back translation also suggested as an additional quality control
check(sireci et. al., 2006)
Back translation refers to translating the synthesized and revised versions of
the instrument of source language
It’s aim is to evaluate the extent to which the translated versions reflects the items
content of the original versions.
Back translation must be performed by at least two translators other than
those who performed the first translation
Back translation process should be used as a tool to identify to identify the words that
were not clear in the target language and to identify inconsistencies or conceptual
errors in the final version(Beaton et. al. 2000)
When the author has access to the back translated version of the instrument, the
author may state the whether the item share the same meanings as those of the
original items.
The author must be aware the possibility of meaning of the word of the item in
it’s appropriate cultural context.

10. 6) Pilot
study:-
The pilot study refers to a previous application of the instrument in a small sample
that reflects the target population characteristics.(gudmundsson, 2009)
Once again, the appropriateness of items regarding their meaning & difficulty. In
addition to instruction for conducting test, should be assessed during this process.
After considering modification suggested in the first pilot study, a second pilot
study is necessary to assess whether the instrument is ready for used.
To avoid any type of bias, the change suggested by the pilot study should be
implemented with the help of committee experts and should never be performed
solely by field researcher

11. ASPECTS OF VALIDATING THE ADAPTED
INSTRUMENT:-
For Herdman, Fox-Rushby, & Badia;1997 & Hui & trinadis; 1985, conceptual idiomatic
equivalence is the first aspect that attained through the adaptation process.
Qualitative methods are essential for ensuring the appropriateness of the adaption
process. They provide no information on the psychometrics proprieties of
instrument.(Eremenco, cella & Arnold; 2005)
Stastical analyses must be performed to assess the extent to which the instrument can
be considered valid for use in deginated context.
The steps required during the validation of psychological instrument are
diverse(Uribna; 2007) and there is no consensus on how much validity must
be possess for it to be considered valid.

12. 1) Evidence of Instrument Validity in the New
Context:-
The first step in the validation of an instrument included the evaluations of it’s
factorial structure.
One should discuss possible change that occur during validation studies in
light of quantitative & qualitative aspects.
The confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis should be used
to assist the researcher in his/her choice of a structure that most plausible for the
sample.
2) Validation of Instruments for Cross-Cultural
Studies:-
The concept of equivalence that refers not only to the qualitative aspects of the
adapted instrument but also to the non-biased measurement between the
adapted instruments and it’s original source.

13. The researcher must simultaneously assess the measure compatibility within
the various groups.
Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis(MGCFA), Differential item
functioning(DIF), proposed by item response theory(IRT) and multi-
dimensional scaling(MDS) may be valuable ways to assessing measurement
variance.
The validity of the assumption of factorial invariance between groups is
crucial for development and adaption of psychological instrument and for the
comparisons of the groups in cross- cultural studies.