Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Translation when There Is No Direct Equivalent—An Experimental Comparison of Different Translations of the Subjunctive Mood in the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
Translating questionnaires is challenging when the source language structure lacks equivalents in the target language. Using item 8 (“I wish I could have more respect for myself”) of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, we experimentally compared three strategies for translating the subjunctive mood from English to Chinese: (1) a close translation preserving vocabulary and structure; (2) an adaptive translation explicitly expressing the self-esteem deficiency; and (3) a problematic yet widely used translation. Results showed the adaptive translation yielded better psychometric properties than the close translation and increased respondent alertness through explicit negative wording. Our findings suggest that the issues with item 8 in non-English samples likely stem from inappropriate translation rather than cross-cultural differences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaranikL. E.MeadeA. W.LakeyC. E.LanceC. E.HuC., et al2008. Examining the differential item functioning of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale across eight countries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology38:1867–904.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.CampbellJ. D.KruegerJ. I.VohsK. D.2003. Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?Psychological Science in the Public Interest4:1–44.
3.
BehrD.DeptS.KrajčevaE.2018. Documenting the survey translation and monitoring process. In Advances in comparative survey methods: Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (3MC). eds. JohnsonT. P.PennellB.-E.StoopI. A. L.DorerB.41–55. New York: Wiley.
4.
BehrD.ShishidoK.2016. The translation of measurement instruments for cross-cultural surveys. In The SAGE handbook of survey methodology, eds. WolfC.JoyeD.SmithT. W.FuY., 269–87. London: Sage.
5.
BoduszekD.HylandP.DhingraK.MallettJ.2013. The factor structure and composite reliability of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale among ex-prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences55:877–81.
6.
BrislinR. W.1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Handbook of cross-cultural research: Methodology, eds. TriandisH. C.BerryJ. W.389–444. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
BrislinR. W.1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field methods in cross-cultural research, eds. LonnerW. J.BerryJ. W. 137–64. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
CohenS.WilliamsonG. M.1988. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In The social psychology of health, eds. SpacapanS.OskampS.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
CongC. W.CheongJ. Y.2023. Validation of Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale for Malaysian adolescents. Current Psychology42:17835–38.
10.
DiedenhofenB.MuschJ.2015. Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLOS ONE10:e0121945.
11.
DoganT.TotanT.SapmazF.2013. The role of self-esteem, psychological well-being, emotional self-efficacy, and affect balance on happiness: A path model. European Scientific Journal9:31–42.
12.
DorerB.2023. Advance translation—The remedy to improve translatability of source questionnaires? Results of a think-aloud study. Field Methods35:33–47.
13.
FarruggiaS. P.ChenC.GreenbergerE.DmitrievaJ.MacekP.2004. Adolescent self-esteem in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology35:719–33.
14.
GalanakisM. J.PalaiologouA.PatsiG.VelegrakiI.-M.DarviriC.2016. A literature review on the connection between stress and self-esteem. Psychology07:687–94.
15.
GnambsT.ScharlA.SchroedersU.2018. The structure of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Zeitschrift für Psychologie226:14–29.
16.
GreenbergerE.ChenC.DmitrievaJ.FarruggiaS. P.2003. Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale: Do they matter?Personality and Individual Differences35:1241–54.
17.
HanX.JiangB.TangJ.WangY.2005. Zizun liangbiao shiyong guochengzhong de jianyi ji jianyi. [Problems and suggestions in the use of a self esteem scale.] Zhongguo Xingwei Yixue Kexue14:763.
18.
HarknessJ. A.2003. Questionnaire translation. In Cross-cultural survey methods., eds. HarknessJ. A.van de VijverF. J. R.MohlerP. P., 35–56. New York: Wiley.
19.
HarknessJ. A.PennellB.-E.Schoua-GlusbergA.2004. Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires, eds. PresserS.RothgebJ. M.CouperM. P.LesslerJ. T.MartinE., et al, 453–73. New York: Wiley.
20.
HarknessJ. A.VillarA.EdwardsB.2010. Translation, adaptation, and design. In Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts, eds. HarknessJ. A.BraunM.EdwardsB.JohnsonT. P.LybergL., et al, 115–40. New York: Wiley.
21.
HuangC.DongN.2012. Factor structures of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment28:132–38.
22.
HubbsA.DoyleE. I.BowdenR. G.DoyleR. D.2012. Relationships among self-esteem, stress, and physical activity in college students. Psychological Reports110:469–74.
KartsounidouE.KlugeR.SilberH.GummerT.2024. Survey experience and its positive impact on response behavior in longitudinal surveys: Evidence from the Probability-based GESIS Panel. International Journal of Social Research Methodology27:261–74.
25.
KrosnickJ. A.1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology5:213–36.
26.
LeitgöbH.SeddigD.AsparouhovT.BehrD.DavidovE., et al2023. Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research110:102805.
27.
LyubomirskyS.LepperH. S.1999. A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research46:137–55.
28.
MatjašičM.VehovarV.ManfredaK. L.2018. Web survey paradata on response time outliers. Advances in Methodology and Statistics 1523–41.
29.
MonteiroR. P.Lins de Holanda CoelhoG.HanelP. H. P.Diógenes de MedeirosE.Gomes da SilvaP. D.2022. The efficient assessment of self-esteem: proposing the brief Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Applied Research in Quality of Life17:931–47.
30.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P.2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A Critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88:879–903.
31.
RepkeL.DorerB.2021. Translate wisely! An evaluation of close and adaptive translation procedures in an experiment involving questionnaire translation. International Journal of Sociology51:135–62.
32.
RiosJ. A.SireciS. G.2014. Guidelines versus practices in cross-lingual assessment: A disconcerting disconnect. International Journal of Testing14:289–312.
33.
RosenbergM.1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
SchmittD. P.AllikJ.2005. Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89:623–42.
35.
ShenZ.CaiT.2008. Rosenberg zizun liangbiao zhongwenban tiaomu 8 de chuli. [Disposal to the 8th item of Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Chinese version).]Zhongguo Xinli Weisheng Zazhi22:661–63.
36.
ShenJ.ZhangJ.TongY.ZhouL.2003. Laonianren yu chengnian zinv jian shehui zhichi yu zizun de guanxi. [The relationship between social support and self-esteem among elderly people and adult children.] Zhongguo Xinli Weisheng Zazhi17:749, 782.
37.
SongH.CaiH.BrownJ. D.GrimmK. J.2011. Differential item functioning of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale in the US and China: Measurement bias matters. Asian Journal of Social Psychology14:176–88.
38.
SuppleA. J.SuJ.PlunkettS. W.PetersonG. W.BushK. R.2013. Factor structure of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology44:748–64.
39.
TaylorJ. A.1953. A personality scale for manifest anxiety. . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology48:285–90.
40.
TianL.2006. Rosenberg Zizun Liangbiao Zhongwenban Tiaomu 8 de Chuli. [Shortcoming and merits of the Chinese version of Rosenberg (1965) Self-esteem Scale.] Xinlixue Tanxin26:88–91.
41.
VinayJ.-P.DarbelnetJ.2000. A methodology for translation. In The translation studies reader, ed. VenutiL., 84–93. London: Routledge.
42.
WangX.WangX.MaH.1999. Xinli Weisheng Pingding Liangbiao Shouce. [Chinese handbook of mental health assessment scales] Beijing: Zhongguo Xinli Weisheng Zazhishe.
43.
WeijtersB.BaumgartnerH.2012. Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research49:737–47.
44.
Zavala-RojasD.BehrD.DorerB.SoratoD.KeckV.2024. Using machine translation and post-editing in the TRAPD approach: Effects on the quality of translated survey texts. Public Opinion Quarterly88:123–48.
45.
ZhangC.ConradF. G.2014. Speeding in web surveys: The tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Survey Research Methods8:127–35.
