If the original questionnaire is validated, then a linguistic validation is sufficient.
If you think statistical revalidation of a translated version is mandatory: - So can you give an example where a statistical validation of a translated version questionnaire was not successful? - Can you explain how statistical validation may change the strategy of the whole process?
According to the AERA, APA and NCME standards, a study only shows evidence of validity of the instrument, this suggests that it can only be interpreted as valid in the sample evaluated, this may vary in a subsequent analysis according to sociodemographic variables and factors, etc.. Considering that also the type of analysis (e.g. exploratory factorial analysis) requires confirmatory factorial analysis including SEM model (structural equations), which may suggest a second order structure and bifactor, so a metric invariance analysis should also be performed.
It is important to validate the translation, to avoid problems of interpretation due to the change of language.
According to the AERA, APA and NCME standards, a study only shows evidence of validity of the instrument, this suggests that it can only be interpreted as valid in the sample evaluated, this may vary in a subsequent analysis according to sociodemographic variables and factors, etc.. Considering that also the type of analysis (e.g. exploratory factorial analysis) requires confirmatory factorial analysis including SEM model (structural equations), which may suggest a second order structure and bifactor, so a metric invariance analysis should also be performed.
Like you mentioned yourself linguistic validation is sufficient for the use of the questionnaire (correct translations are covered by using validated translation methods such as FACIT trans), but it is the cultural differences/relevance that needs to be taken into account during statistical analyses (especially if you have a questionnaire which is based on IRT modelling).
I have a very simple example for you that we (and other countries) encountered when translating some questionnaires on physical functioning from English to our native language. Certain items were just not relevant for other countries (such as doing yard work, while most Koreans do not have yards) and being able to go to the toilet without help (some countries have high toilets, other low ones). Due to these differences you might run into differential item functioning (DIF), which means questions behave differently for subgroups based on some background characteristic (such as language). This also has an impact on the domain/sum scores. A solution to DIF could be changing the method for calculating sum scores or the replacement/removal of the question with DIF.
Basically, what Cristian Ramos-Vera mentioned, measurement invariance (i.e. same factorial structure) is required for different cultures (which is more than just the language).
Best,
Michiel
I support the answers above that indicate translation to be a complex matter because it usually occurs so that a scale can be administered in a different culture. In research that a colleague and I have done recently, we found that translating English scales that are applicable to Western participants into Chinese for Chinese participants required considerable effort on our part to ensure cultural appropriateness.
We obtained somewhat different results from the results that are typically obtained in Western contexts, so it is possible that measurement invariance was not maintained. In my view, this kind of issue cannot be ignored.
All the best with your research.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics