As international research studies become more commonplace, the importance of developing multilingual research instruments continues to increase and with it that of translated materials. It is therefore not unexpected that assessing the quality of translated materials (e.g., research instruments, questionnaires, etc.) has become essential to cross-cultural research, given that the reliability and validity of the research findings crucially depend on the translated instruments. In some fields (e.g., public health and medicine), the quality of translated instruments can also impact the effectiveness and success of interventions and public campaigns. Back-translation (BT) is a commonly used quality assessment tool in cross-cultural research. This quality assurance technique consists of (a) translation (target text [TT1]) of the source text (ST), (b) translation (TT2) of TT1 back into the source language, and (c) comparison of TT2 with ST to make sure there are no discrepancies. The accuracy of the BT with respect to the source is supposed to reflect equivalence/accuracy of the TT. This article shows how the use of BT as a translation quality assessment method can have a detrimental effect on a research study and proposes alternatives to BT. One alternative is illustrated on the basis of the translation and quality assessment methods used in a research study on hearing loss carried out in a border community in the southwest of the United States.
BerkanovicE. (1980). The effect of inadequate language translation on Hispanics’ responses to health surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 70, 1273–1281.
2.
BonomiA. E.CellaD. F.HahnE. A.BjordalK.Sperner-UnterwegerB.GangeriL.…ZittounR. (1996). Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Quality of Life Research, 5, 309–320.
3.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
4.
BrislinR. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In LonnerW. L.BerryJ. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
CardemilF.EsquivelP.AguayoL.BarríaT.FuenteA.CarvajalR.…YuehB. (2013). Transcultural adaptation to Spanish of the instrument “Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation” for the assessment of quality of life in patients using hearing aids. Acta Otorrinolaringológica española, 64, 416–422.
6.
CatfordJ. A. (1964). A linguistic theory of translation. London, England: Oxford University Press.
7.
CellaD.HernandezL.BonomiA. E.CoronaM.VaqueroM.ShiomotoG.BaezL. (1998). Spanish language translation and initial validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy quality-of-life instrument. Medical Care, 36, 1407–1418.
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. (2011). National health and nutrition examination survey questionnaire—audiometry protocol. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved fromhttp://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2011-2012/AUQ_G.htm
9.
ColinaS. (2008). Translation quality evaluation: Empirical evidence for a functionalist approach. The Translator, 14, 97–134.
10.
ColinaS. (2009). Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation. Target, 21, 215–244.
11.
ColinaS. (2015). Fundamentals of translation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12.
de JongZ.van der HeijdeD.McKennaS. P.WhalleyD. (1997). The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: A rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. British Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 878–883.
13.
DouglasS. P.CraigS. C. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back-translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 30–43.
14.
DouglasS. P.NijssenE. J. (2003). On the use of ‘borrowed’ scales in cross-national research: A cautionary note. International Marketing Review, 20, 621–642.
15.
EremencoS.CellaD.ArnoldB. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28, 212–232.
16.
FourieJ.FeinauerI. (2005). The quality of translated medical research questionnaires. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 23, 349–367.
17.
GuilleminF.BombardierC.BeatonD. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.
18.
HerdmanM.Fox-RushbyJ.BadiaX. (1997). ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 6, 237–247.
19.
HouseJ. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta, 46, 243–257.
20.
JääskeläinenR. (1990). Features of successful translation processes: A think aloud protocol study. Unpublished Licentiate Thesis, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland.
21.
JenningsM. B.CheesmanM. F.Laplante-LévesqueA. (2014). Psychometric properties of the self-efficacy for situational communication management questionnaire (SESMQ). Ear and Hearing, 35, 221–229.
22.
JonesP. S.LeeJ. W.PhillipsL. R.Zhang XinweiE.JaceldoK. B. (2001). An adaptation of Brislin’s translation model for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 50, 300–304.
23.
LichtensteinM.HazudaH. (1998). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S) for use with Spanish-speaking Mexican Americans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 46, 492.
24.
LörscherW. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation strategies. A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
25.
LörscherW. (1992). Process-oriented research into translation and implications for translation teaching. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 5, 145–161.
26.
ManeesriwongulW.DixonJ. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 175–186.
27.
McKennaS. P.DowardL. C. (2005). The translation and cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 8, 89–91.
28.
NidaE. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
29.
NobleW. (2002). Extending the IOI to significant others and to non-hearing-aid-based interventions. International Journal of Audiology, 41, 27–29.
30.
NordC. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained (Translation Theories Explained, 1). Manchester, England: St. Jerome.
31.
ReissK.VermeerH. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-Theorie. Tübingen, Germany: Niemayer.
32.
ScarinciN.WorrallL.HicksonL. (2009). The effect of hearing impairment in older people on the spouse: Development and psychometric testing of the significant other scale for hearing disability (SOS-HEAR). International Journal of Audiology, 48, 671–683.
33.
SchowR.NerbonneM. (1982). Communication screening profile: Use with elderly clients. Ear and Hearing, 3, 135–147.
34.
ShimpT. A.SharmaS. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280–289.
35.
TyupaS. (2011). A theoretical framework for back-translation as a quality assessment tool. New Voices in Translation Studies, 7, 35–46.
WeinsteinB. E. (1986). Validity of a screening protocol for identifying elderly people with hearing problems. Accredited Social Health Activists, 28, 41–45.
38.
WeinsteinB. E.RasheedyD.TahaH. M.FatouhF. N. (2015). Cross-cultural adaptation of an Arabic version of the 10-item hearing handicap inventory. International Journal of Audiology, 54, 341–346.
39.
WhalleyD.McKennaS. P.de JongZ.van der HeijdeD. (1997). Quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 884–888.
