Measures of the same phenomenon should produce the same results; this principle is fundamental because it allows for replication—the basis of science. Unfortunately, measures of a psychological construct in one language can often measure something a bit different in another language (i.e., low “scale equivalence”). Historically, the problem was thought to stem from insufficient knowledge of best-practice translation procedures. Yet solutions based on this diagnosis and their widespread adoption have not resolved the issue. In this article, we suggest that an additional problem might be insufficient information about the measure being translated. If so, low scale equivalence is a problem that translators and cross-cultural psychologists cannot solve on their own. We explore the possibility that measure-specific translation guides be created by original scale builders for the most widely used measures of important psychological constructs. We describe why such guides are needed, when they are needed, what they might look like, their feasibility, and next steps, providing a complete example guide and test case in a supplement concerning the Primals Inventory. In this article, we seek to spark discussion on translation practices happening behind the scenes and how greater transparency can improve scale equivalence, in the spirit of open science.
AcquadroC.PatrickD. L.EremencoS.MartinM. L.KuliśD.CorreiaH.ConwayK.; on behalf of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG). (2018). Emerging good practices for translatability assessment (TA) of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0035-8
2.
ArafatS.ChowdhuryH.QusarM.HafezM. (2016). Cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5, 129–136.
3.
BanduraA. (2006a). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 1–43). Information Age.
4.
BanduraA. (2006b). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Information Age.
5.
BeatonD. E.BombardierC.GuilleminF.FerrazM. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191.
6.
BorsaJ. C.DamásioB. F.BandeiraD. R. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22, 423–432.
7.
ChenF. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.
8.
ChoK. W.TseC. S.NeelyJ. H. (2012). Citation rates for experimental psychology articles published between 1950 and 2004: Top-cited articles in behavioral cognitive psychology. Memory & Cognition, 40(7), 1132–1161.
9.
CliftonJ. D. W. (2020). Managing validity versus reliability trade-offs in scale-building decisions. Psychological Methods, 25, 259–270.
10.
CliftonJ. D. W.BakerJ. D.ParkC. L.YadenD. B.CliftonA. B. W.TerniP.MillerJ. L.ZengG.GiorgiS.SchwartzH. A.SeligmanM. E. P. (2019). Primal world beliefs. Psychological Assessment, 31, 82–99.
11.
DeVellisR. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage.
12.
DienerE. D.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
13.
EggerJ. I.De MeyH. R.DerksenJ. J.van der StaakC. P. (2003). Cross-cultural replication of the five-factor model and comparison of the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales in a Dutch psychiatric sample. Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 81–88.
14.
EremencoS.PeaseS.MannS.Consortium’s Process Subcommittee. (2017). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium translation process: Consensus development of updated best practices. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0037-6
15.
FergusonC. J. (2015). “Everybody knows psychology is not a real science”: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70(6), 527–543.
16.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.
HambletonR. K.LeeM. K. (2013). Methods for translating and adapting tests to increase cross-language validity. In SaklofskeD. H.ReynoldsC. R.SchweanV. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 172–181). Oxford University Press.
19.
HambletonR. K.ZeniskyA. L. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In MatsumotoD.van de VijverF. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–74). Cambridge University Press.
20.
HarzingA. W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
21.
HerdmanM.Fox-RushbyJ.BadiaX. (1998). A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: The universalist approach. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 323–335.
IurinoK.SaucierG. (2020). Testing measurement invariance of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire across 27 countries. Assessment, 27(2), 365–372.
24.
JohnsonT. P.ShavittS.HolbrookA. L. (2011). Survey response styles across cultures. In MatsumotoD.van de VijverF. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 130–175). Cambridge University Press.
25.
KalletR. H. (2004). How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1229–1232.
26.
KatanD. (2009). Occupation or profession: A survey of the translators’ world. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 4, 187–209.
27.
LeungK.LamB. C. P.BondM. H.ConwayL. G.GornickL. J.AmponsahB.BoehnkeK.DragolovG.BurgessS. M.GolestanehM.BuschH.HoferJ.EspinosaA.del.C. D.FardisM.IsmailR.KurmanJ.LebedevaN.TatarkoA. N.SamD. L.. . . ZhouF. (2012). Developing and evaluating the social axioms survey in eleven countries: Its relationship with the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 833–857.
MatsumotoD.van de VijverF. J. R. (Eds.). (2011). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. Cambridge University Press.
30.
MaxwellS. E.LauM. Y.HowardG. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498.
PACTE Group:BeebyA.FernándezM.FoxO.Hurtado AlbirA.KozlovaI.KuznikA.NeunzigW.RodríguezP.RomeroL (2008). First results of a translation competence experiment: ‘Knowledge of translation’ and ‘Efficacy of the translation process.’ In KearnsJ. (Ed.), Translator and interpreter training. Issues, methods and debates (pp. 104–126). Bloomsbury.
33.
RobinsonO. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13(2), 32–39.
34.
Sanchez-BurksJ.LeeF.ChoiI.NisbettR.ZhaoS.KooJ. (2003). Conversing across cultures: East-West communication styles in work and nonwork contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 363–372.
SheatsleyP. B. (1983). Questionnaire construction and item writing. In RossiP. H.WrightJ. D.AndersonA. B. (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 195–230). Academic Press.
37.
StahlmannA. G.HofmannJ.RuchW.HeinzS.CliftonJ. D. W. (2020). The higher-order structure of primal world beliefs in German-speaking countries: Adaptation and initial validation of the German Primals Inventory (PI-66-G). Personality and Individual Differences, 163, Article 110054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110054
38.
StevanovicD.JafariP.KnezR.FranicT.AtilolaO.DavidovicN.BagheriZ.LakicA. (2017, February). Can we really use available scales for child and adolescent psychopathology across cultures? A systematic review of cross-cultural measurement invariance data. Transcult Psychiatry, 54(1), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461516689215
39.
TayL.JebbA. T. (2018). Establishing construct continua in construct validation: The process of continuum specification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 375–388.
40.
van de VijverF. J.HambletonR. K. (1996). Translating tests. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.
41.
van de VijverF. J.LeungK. (2021). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research (Vol. 116). Cambridge University Press.
42.
The WHOQOL Group. (1994). The Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument. In OrleyJ.KuykenW. (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: International perspectives (pp. 41–60). Springer.
43.
WildD.GroveA.MartinM.EremencoS.McElroyS.Verjee-LorenzA., & ISPOR Task Force for Translation Cultural Adaptation. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104.
44.
WillisG. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
