We are going to conduct a study on pre-operative anxiety in admitted surgical patients. For that, we are going to apply a tool that has already been validated in South East Asia. The investigators will themselves collect data from the study patients by explaining to them all the questions in the tool in the Nepalese language. Now, is it necessary to translate this tool into the Nepalese language (native for the study subjects) as well?
Well, I think it depends on a number of factors such as: the respondents themselves, the data you intend to collect, types of questions to be addressed and the expected responses from the target subjects. Are you collecting field survey data? debriefing survey questions? One more important thing, are your subjects literate or otherwise? To avoid bias and interference and ensure validity of data, I suggest researchers minimize their presence and influence in the process.
Thank you for responding. Our study participants are patients admitted in the surgery ward of a tertiary hospital. Some would be educated and others illiterate as well. In this scenario, we are confused whether to get the translated version or collect data by briefing questionnaires of the tool before every study case.
It's ideal to use a validated translation. But in field work that is not always possible, especially not in a timely fashion. I suggest recording at least some of the sessions so that you can review them.
It will also depend on the guidelines of your Institutional Review Board (IRB). Given that the study is on pre-operative anxiety and the surgical patients (participants) would have already been admitted, they should be given the chance to answer in Nepalese.
As Rhianon mentioned, it is not always possible to produce a translation timely.
If you want to make sure that all your (Nepalese-speaking) patients are actually answering to the same (identical) questions in your survey, you should provide the interviewers with a single, authoritative translation of the survey. Otherwise your patients' answers will depend on the current, ad-hoc translation of each interviewer - which will hinder the comparability across the patients' answers. And, almost needless to add, your interviewers' ad-hoc translations might inadvertently skew the content of the questions (unless they are using a single, authoritative version).
For the sake of authenticity and originality, it should be translated
It will be important to subject all your interviewees to one standard tool, which should be in a language that is understood and known well by all. In this case, it is highly recommended that it be translated.
I second some of the answers that have already been provided above (the need for an authoritative translation and the recording). Having used a translated questionnaire myself, I know that part of the validation process consists in piloting your instrument with individuals that match the characteristics of the experimental group. You may find that your translation, however professional, may still leave room for doubt / interpretation when actual patients read / hear it. Keep in mind that if you are translating a quantitative instrument, you will need to check its validity again (Cronbach's alpha)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics