Back translation is the technique most commonly used to check the accuracy of translation in survey research. Although it results in a direct or literal translation, it does not address issues of conceptual equivalence. Furthermore, if it is not combined with pretesting, it does not address issues of comprehension and meaning to the respondent. This article discusses some of the problems of relying exclusively on back translation in isolation. It suggests the use of a collaborative, iterative approach for translating questionnaires for international marketing research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrislinRichard W. (1970), “Back Translation for Cross-Cultural Research,”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 (3), 185–216.
2.
BrislinRichard W. (1980), “Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Material,” in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 1, HarryC. Triandis, and BerryJ.W., eds. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 389–444.
3.
CraigC. Samuel, and SusanP. Douglas (2005), International Marketing Research, 3d ed.Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
DouglasSusan P., and EdwinJ. Nijssen (2003), “On the Use of ‘Borrowed’ Scales in Cross-National Research: A Cautionary Note,”International Marketing Review, 20 (6), 621–42.
5.
HambletonR.K. (1993), “Translating Achievement Tests for Use in Cross-National Studies,”European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9 (1), 57–65.
6.
HambletonR.K. (1994), “Guidelines for Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests: A Progress Report,”European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10 (3), 229–44.
7.
HarknessJanet A. (2003), “Questionnaire Translation,” in Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, JanetA. Harkness, van de VijverFons J.R., and MohlerPeter Ph., eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 35–56.
8.
HarknessJanet A., and Schoua-GlusbergA. (1998), “Questionnaires in Translation,” in ZUMA-Nachtrichten Spezial, No. 3: Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence, JanetA. Harkness, ed. Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.
9.
McKayR.B., BreslowM.J., SangsterR.L., GabbardS.M., ReynoldsR.W., NakamotoJ.M., and TarnaiJ. (1996), “Translating Survey Questionnaires: Lessons Learned,”New Directions for Evaluation, 70, 93–105.
10.
MullenMichael R. (1995), “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research,”Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (3), 573–96.
11.
PrzeworskiA., and TeuneH. (1966), “Equivalence in Cross-National Research,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter), 551–68.
12.
Schoua-GlusbergA. (1992), Report on the Translation of the Questionnaire for the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study.Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
13.
ShimpT.A., and SharmaS. (1987), “Consumer Ethnocentricism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,”Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280–89.
14.
SmithTom W. (2003), “Developing Comparable Questions in Cross-National Surveys,” in Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, JanetA. Harkness, van de VijverFons J.R., and MohlerPeter Ph., eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 69–92.
15.
SorianoMirella Yani, and GordonR. Foxall (2002), “A Spanish Translation of Mehrabian and Russell's Emotionality Scales for Environmental Consumer Psychology,”Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2 (1), 23–36.
16.
TriandisHarry C. (1972), The Analysis of Subjective Culture.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
17.
Van de VijverFons, and HambletonR.K. (1996), “Translating Tests: Some Practical Guidelines,”European Psychologist, 1 (4), 89–99.
18.
Van de VijverFons, and LeungKwok (1997), Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
19.
Van HerkHester (2003), Equivalence in a Cross-National Context: Methodological and Empirical Issues in Marketing Research.Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
20.
VossKevin A., DonaldE. Stem, LesterW. Johnson, and ArceConstantino (1996), “An Exploration of the Comparability of Semantic Adjectives in Three Languages: A Magnitude Estimation Approach,”International Marketing Review, 13 (5), 44–58.
21.
WernerOscar, and CampbellDonald (1970), “Translating, Working Through Interpreters and the Problems of Decentring,” in A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology, NarollR., and CohenR., eds. New York: Columbia University Press, 398–420.
