Yes, you should conduct a pilot study as well as having a reverse translation of what you have translated. 

Hi Mehmet.  Dave Kennedey addresses  reliability and validity in scale adaption in "Scale Adaptation and Ethnography" (2005).  Essentially, it's an iterative process of scale identification, translation/back translation, and then improvement through ethnographic supporting activities (such as interviewing and observation).  Dave has a copy of the article here on RG. 

Thanks Brian and Williams. I appreciate your time!

How many items contains that scale? I mean "pilot study" sounds like collecting some dozents for preliminary evaluation. If that scale contains more than 20 - which I assume - I'd recommend conducting an evaluation study with adequate sample size. You might consider collecting at least a n = 100 for some reliability testing; for EFA you'd need at least 5 participants per item of the scale; for CFA at least 200 - 250.

Dear Mehmet:

I think, it depends on the scope of your own study (and, probably also on your field):

If you want to validate this scale in your language, then a pre-study testing for the common psychometric properties is absolutely necessary. However, if the scale is just one out of several measures employed in your research, then a translation with adequate back-translation should be sufficient (for example, this is often done in personality psychology).

If you want to do a pilot: You could a simple online study using that scale – this would be an economic way to collect a reasonable size of participants in a short time and to some reliability testing. 

I wish you good luck with your research!

Best,

Ramzi

I agree with Ramzi.

It is best to obtain realistic information with a short economic method, and than do your full population study.  As you may very aware, translations can be problem, and reverse translations checking for validity and reliability is paramount for any study.

Don

Yes you should go for piloting to establish con-current validity and also reverse translation should be done for this

I do recommend pilot testing. First, we must review the literature; explore the concept; list the themes; formulate the items, and select the judges.

It is at this point that we can say that we have created the instrument and therefore the instrument thus developed has content validity, but we have not yet assessed any of its metric properties.

Up to this point, we have not made use of statistics to corroborate the suitability of the instrument we are evaluating, therefore, at this point, we start the quantitative phase of instrument validation and this corresponds to the evaluation of its metric properties.

After the pilot test, consistency must be evaluated; the possible reduction of items and dimensions must be analysed; and finally, the identification of a criterion must be achieved.