Perhaps some of these examples from my lab--that fall into the category "other suggestions", will be useful to you:

Transliteration (translating with meaning) requires theoretical substantive analysis to ensure conceptual cross-cultural equivalence of specific queries (methods and analyses are discussed):

• Yarnold, P.R., Bryant, F.B., & Litsas, F. (1989). Type A behavior and psychological androgyny among Greek college students. European Journal of Personality, 3, 249-268.
• Yarnold, P.R., & Bryant, F.B. (1988). Seven transliterations of the short version of the student Jenkins Activity Survey. Social and Behavioral Science Documents, 18, 18-19. MS# 2854.

Confirmatory factor analysis is used to understand inherent structure and fine-tune measurement:

• Yarnold, P.R., Bryant, F.B., & Grimm, L.G. (1987). Comparing the short and long versions of the student Jenkins Activity Survey. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 75-90.
• Bryant, F.B., & Yarnold, P.R. (1989). A measurement model for the short form of the student Jenkins Activity Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 188-191.

Norms can be useful:

• Yarnold, P.R., & Lyons, J.S. (1987). Norms for college undergraduates on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory and the Wiggins Interpersonal Behavior Circle. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 595-599.

Reliability is important:

• Yarnold, P.R., Mueser, K.T., Grau, B.W., & Grimm, L.G. (1986). The reliability of the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 401-414.
• Yarnold, P.R. (1994). Comparing the split-half reliability of androgyny and sex-typing measures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 164-169.
• Yarnold, P.R. (2014). How to assess inter-observer reliability of ratings made on ordinal scales: Evaluating and comparing the Emergency Severity Index (Version 3) and Canadian Triage Acuity Scale. Optimal Data Analysis, 3, 42-49.

Studies of convergent and discriminant validity--even if only comparison of alternative parallel measuring instruments--are informative:

• Yarnold, P.R., & Bryant, F.B. (1994). A measurement model of the Type A Self-Rating Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 102-115.
• Bryant, F.B., & Yarnold, P.R. (1995). Comparing five alternative factor-models of the Student Jenkins Activity Survey: Separating the wheat from the chaff. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 145-158.
• Bryant, F.B., Yarnold, P.R, & Morgan, L. (1991). Type A behavior and reminiscence in college undergraduates. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 418-433.
• Yarnold, P.R., Stille, F.C., & Martin, G.J. (1995). Cross-sectional psychometric assessment of the Functional Status Questionnaire: Use with geriatric versus nongeriatric ambulatory medical patients. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 25, 305-317.

Literacy, completion time, and administration modality requirements are crucial:

• Arozullah, A.M., Yarnold, P.R., Bennett, C.L., et al. (2007). Development and validation of a short-form Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine. Medical Care, 45, 1026-1033.
• Arozullah, A.M., Lee, S.D., Khan, T., et al. (2006). The Roles of Low Literacy and Social Support in Predicting the Preventability of Hospital Admission. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 140-145.
• Yarnold, P.R., Stewart, M.J., Stille, F.C., et al. (1996). Assessing functional status of elderly adults via microcomputer. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 689-690.

Finally, some articles on teaching medical students, by colleagues using novel methods (at that time), may be of interest:

• Wyte, C.D., Pitts, F., Cabel, J.A., et al. (1995). Effect of learning objectives on the performances of students and interns rotating through an emergency department. Academic Medicine, 70, 1145-1146.
• Wyte, C.D., Adams, S.L., Cabel, J.A., et al. (1996). Prospective evaluation of emergency medicine instruction for rotating first-postgraduate-year residents. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3, 72-76
• Brown, J.L., Curry, R.H., Arseven, A., et al. (1998). The value of a primary care clerkship morning report. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 10, 162-166.
• Levine, M., Yarnold, P.R., Michelson, E. (2002). A training program in portable fluoroscopy for detection of glass in soft tissues. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9, 858-862..

Optimal wishes!

Thank you, Paul!

Dear Michal S. Karbownik,

The application of  a questionnaire is believed to be meritorious because of  reliability, comparability, relative ease of administration and  analysis as well as its potential benefit of obtaining  data from  large samples . However, as you have rightly observed, it may also result in certain undesirable  epistemological consequences. In point of fact, the validity of the data depends  on the extent to which the targeted respondents are able to understand the statements or the  items on the questionnaire. Notably, readability of the statements or questions  may have a direct bearing on  the expected outcomes leading to such  problems as low return rates, missing data, and careless responses. Such issues can negatively influence the representativeness of  the expected   outcome and the validity and reliability of the instrument. As such, to measure the validity of the translated questionnaire enlist what Davies calls " specialist opinion" by giving it to several colleagues to evaluate and identify the appropriacy of the items.  To measure the reliability,  you can use pilot testing. By administering the instrument to a small group of participants , you can obtain a clear picture of the efficacy of the items. However, you can also use various readability formulas such as the ones you have referred to . For more information, I refer you to the following link, which can introduce to you a number of more recent readability formulas.

Best regards,

R. Biria 

https://www.localisation.ie/oldwebsite/resources/Awards/.../PatrickCadwell_Thesis.pdf

Dear Reza,

Thank you very much. The link you proposed does not work. The browser communicates "no permission to access the file". Could you please share the file e.g. via e-mail: [email protected]

Thank you!

Readability of scale item is critical issue. If the scale has few words (with any level of Vagueness), this will lead to errors in measurement. It is recommended that the readability level to be assessed against individuals who are at the level of sixth grade {with same language speakers}.

Research textbooks recommend this

I believe you translated and adapted a questionnaire from English language to another language at your country or setting. If that is the case, you can't use Gunning fog index and Flesch–Kincaid readability formula as both are designed for English text. While readability is an important component of translation, I would also put equal if not higher emphasis on equivalence (conceptual and semantic) of translated questionnaire to the original questionnaire. In other words, the meaning of questionnaire item takes precedent.