I am designing a survey on facial recognition technology that will be deployed in both English and French. The English version of the survey has been professionally translated, and it looks very good as far as I can tell (though I have to rely on high school french and Google translate to check this!).
One concern I have, though, is with the five-point Likert scale. This will be used by respondents to evaluate 27 UTAUT statements (based on Venkatesh et al., 2003). Page et al. (2022) report on their efforts to translate the UTAUT-2 questionnaire (which is helpful) but they only label the end-points (i.e., strongly agree / strongly disagree) of their seven-point scale - leaving the rest of the options blank. (This might be my best option here; several examples I found in the literature only label the end points. Nonetheless, I'm interested in how to translate all five points in the scale).
My original English scale is:
The professional translator rendered this as:
One version I found is in Belley-Ranger, Carbonneau and Trudeau (2021), who use this scale:
However, Haggerty, Bouharaoui and Santor (2011) provide these perspectives:
To summarize:
Appreciate any thoughts.
References
Belley-Ranger, E., Carbonneau, H., & Trudeau, F. (2021). Psychometric properties of the French version of Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (B-SSS). European Review of Applied Psychology = Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 71(3), 100655.
Haggerty, J. L., Bouharaoui, F., & Santor, D. A. (2011). Differential item functioning in primary healthcare evaluation instruments by french/english version, educational level and urban/rural location. Healthcare Policy = Politiques de Sante, 7(Spec Issue), 47–65.
Pagé, I., Roos, M., Collin, O., Lynch, S. D., Lamontagne, M.-E., Massé-Alarie, H., & K Blanchette, A. (2022). UTAUT2-based questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation to Canadian French. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1–8.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.