Lost in Translation: Thoughts Regarding the Translation of Existing Psychological Measures Into Other Languages

Abstract

Free AccessEditorialLost in Translation: Thoughts Regarding the Translation of Existing Psychological Measures Into Other LanguagesMatthias Ziegler and Doreen BenschMatthias ZieglerSearch for more papers by this author and Doreen BenschSearch for more papers by this authorPublished OnlineApril 05, 2013https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000167PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit SectionsMoreOver the last decades, psychological science has become more and more international (Alonso-Arbiol & van de Vijver, 2010). In order to be able to compare research findings from different countries and in different languages, it is important to ensure the comparability of the assessment methods used. Thus, translations of standard measures have now appeared in a multitude of different languages. The increased availability of different language versions of the same measurement tools would seemingly create a need to internationally publish articles introducing these versions. An often-heard argument is that, in order for the translated measure to be useful, an English language publication has to test its psychometric properties. Let us scrutinize this argument more closely.An argument often used to support the need for an English-language publication concerning a translated instrument is that the international research community would not accept research findings based on translated instruments whose psychometric properties have not also been published in English. This is a dangerous thought, on the one hand, because it implies a certain mistrust: A peer-reviewed publication would otherwise suffice. On the other hand, besides this theoretical consideration, we will address some more practical issues below.When a new measurement tool is constructed, among the first questions to be answered are the following: For what measurement purpose is the instrument designed (e.g., personnel selection, clinical assessment)?What is the target population (e.g., adolescents, adults, patients)?Who will employ the instrument (e.g., researchers, practitioners)? When translating an existing measurement tool into another language, clearly one must answer these questions as well. Obviously, the original authors have already defined the measurement purpose of the instrument. The same usually holds true for the target population and the instrument user. However, during translation of a measurement tool these aspects should be reconsidered and expressed specifically. Sometimes a translation goes hand in hand with a changed (or changing) target population or measurement purpose. Thus, measures are usually translated with a specific goal.Most translations probably aim for one of the following three goals: to make a particular instrument available in a different language,to provide a means for cross-cultural research,to conduct research on the specific instrument itself. Not all of these translation goals have the same readership in mind. Consequently, depending on the translation goal, an English-language publication of the instrument’s psychometric properties may be more or less useful.When making a standard instrument available to a different language community, practitioners usually represent the targeted readership. This in itself is a valuable goal because practitioners probably make up the majority of test-users. However, it can be assumed that most practitioners have better access to journals published in their own language. Moreover, practitioners most likely find it easier to comprehend the ever-increasing complexity of data analyses if they can read it in their native language. Consequently, publishing findings in national journals should in fact positively affect the acceptance of the translated instrument. For this reason, this should be the preferred outlet of the article if the translation goal is to make the instrument available to local practitioners. This is especially true if testing the psychometric properties closely mirrors the original publication, so that the translated instrument and its inherent qualities are introduced to the practitioner at the same time.There are several examples where such a publication strategy was successful. Rammstedt and John (2005) as well as Lang, Lüdtke, and Asendorpf (2001) published German versions of the Big Five Inventory (BFI), albeit differing in length. Both papers are cited 8–9 times per year on average since their appearance. Moreover, there are German- as well as English-language papers that apply these translated BFI versions. Thus, the publications reached the intended audience and sparked new research that was accepted internationally.The translation goals of cross-cultural research and research on the instrument itself have a stronger focus on a research-minded audience. Consequently, an English-language publication might address exactly the intended readership. Obviously, a journal such as the European Journal of Psychological Assessment would be interested in both kinds of translation efforts.However, all three goals (but especially the latter two) also imply that the translation guarantees measurement invariance. Otherwise, practitioners cannot be assured that they are truly assessing the same construct they intended to measure. Likewise, researchers cannot safely conduct cross-cultural comparisons. Nor is it reasonable to critique and develop an instrument without having shown that the same underlying construct is being measured. Chen (2008) clearly pointed out the effects of lacking measurement invariance. Her findings show that mean comparisons as well as comparisons of correlation coefficients are distorted if measurement invariance is not given. Especially distorted correlation coefficients have the potential to harm comparisons of psychometric properties derived from different language versions of the same instrument. After all, many methods we use to estimate the psychometric properties of an instrument rely on correlations, e.g., factor analyses, test-retest reliability, criterion and construct validity, internal consistency, and so on.Thus, any translation process should include some evidence for measurement invariance (e.g., Grygiel, Humenny, Rebisz, Kwitaj, & Sikorska, 2013); otherwise, empirical evidence for the psychometric soundness of a translation is hard to interpret. Of course, if a translated test version reaches comparable test score reliabilities and comparable validity findings, we often feel assured that the translation was successful. Nevertheless, Chen’s findings should put some question marks behind this belief. Moreover, if the findings do not deviate from those of the original version, this is probably mostly of interest to the new language community. The international community can gain few new insights – besides the fact another language version of the instrument now exists. Of course, if the translation offers some new insights, e.g., new criterion validity-related evidence, new norms, new age groups, etc., then international readers might become interested. International readers might be even more inclined to read and cite such translations if the new findings deviate from the original findings. But without some test of measurement invariance, both the deviations and the new findings are hard to interpret. Thus, testing measurement invariance becomes an interesting and indispensable issue within the translation process. Failing to achieve invariance can have many reasons, translation issues being only one of them (Sass, 2011). Exploring possible reasons for failed measurement invariance might be of greater interest to readers from all languages interested in the specific measurement tool or underlying construct.Once measurement invariance has been demonstrated, cross-cultural comparisons can be made. Moreover, it then becomes possible to compare psychometric properties based on correlations. Providing evidence for measurement invariance sounds difficult because it requires gathering data from different language populations. However, a translation is usually based on an existing, empirically tested instrument. Thus, such data are available and should be made available by the original authors.Having said this, it should be stressed that a translated instrument without evidence for measurement invariance is by no means useless. On the contrary, such an adaption to a new language offers many useful applications. The limiting factor is comparability with findings from other languages and, thus, the value for an international readership. Such studies should include aspects that broaden the knowledge for all users of the measure, both nationally and internationally.Summing up, we emphasized two issues. First, each translation process of an existing instrument should thoroughly consider the intended user of the translation and how to best address that user. There are many cases in which a publication within the new language is more appropriate because the intended readership has better access to it.Second, translations directed toward a research-minded, international readership should provide some evidence for measurement invariance. This in itself is highly interesting, and even failed attempts potentially offer important insights for all readers.References Alonso-Arbiol, I. , & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). A historical analysis of the European Journal of Psychological Assessment . European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 238–247. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar Chen, F. 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Grygiel, P. , Humenny, G. , Rebisz, S. , Kwitaj, P. , Sikorska, J. (2013). Validating the Polish adaptation of the 11-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 129–139. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar Lang, F. R. , Lüdtke, O. , Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen [Test quality and psychometric equivalence of the German Big Five Inventory (BFI) for young, middle-aged, and old adults]. Diagnostica, 47, 111–121. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar Rammstedt, B. , & John, O. P. (2005). Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Development and validation of an economic inventory for assessment of the five factors of personality. Diagnostica, 51, 195–206. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 347–363. First citation in articleCrossref, Google ScholarMatthias Ziegler, Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt University Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin, Germany, +49 30 2093-9447, +49 30 2093-9361, zieglema@hu-berlin.deDoreen Bensch, Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt University Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin, Germany, +49 30 2093-9447, +49 30 2093-9361, benschdx@cms.hu-berlin.deFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byWork Addiction and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: the Mediating Role of Food Addiction Among Lebanese Young Adult Workers12 September 2022 | International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Vol. 30Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale16 August 2022 | Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 3Oral Health-Related Quality Of Life of Pre-School Children: Review and Perspectives for New Instruments1 November 2020 | Brazilian Dental Journal, Vol. 31, No. 6Burnout and Depression in Medical Assistants in State-Owned Healthcare Institutions in Romania29 October 2020 | Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Social Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 1Expectations of nursing degree students: A longitudinal analysisNurse Education Today, Vol. 92The German Version of the Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory (MASI) for Turkish-Origin Immigrants Measurement Invariance of Filter Questions and ValidationLaura Scholaske, Norma Rodriguez, Nida Emel Sari, Jacob Spallek, Matthias Ziegler, and Sonja Entringer24 January 2020 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 36, No. 5Psychological Test Adaptation and Development – How Papers Are Structured and WhyMatthias Ziegler25 June 2020 | Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, Vol. 0, No. 0“Old Wine in a New Bottle”. Depression and Romantic Relationships in Italian Emerging Adulthood: The Moderating Effect of Gender9 June 2020 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17, No. 11Capturing the Four-Phase Team Adaptation Process With Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)Eleni Georganta and Felix C. Brodbeck19 December 2018 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 36, No. 2Assessment of Depressive Disorders and SuicidalityTranslation and validation of body image instruments: Challenges, good practice guidelines, and reporting recommendations for test adaptationBody Image, Vol. 31Enjoyment, Boredom, Anxiety in Elementary Schools in Two Domains: Relations With Achievement8 May 2018 | The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 87, No. 3Measuring Job Crafting Across Cultures: Lessons Learned From Comparing a German and an Australian Sample7 May 2019 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10Development and validation of the School Social Judgment Scale for children: Their judgment of the self to foster achievement at school26 February 2018 | Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 21, No. 3Measurement Invariance of a Universal Behavioral Screener Across Samples From the USA and GermanyGino Casale, Robert J. Volpe, Brian Daniels, Thomas Hennemann, Amy M. Briesch, and Michael Grosche29 November 2017 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 34, No. 2A Cross-Cultural Validation of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT)Results From Ten Countries Across Three ContinentsMarkus Quirin, Monika Wróbel, Andrea Norcini Pala, Stefan Stieger, Jos Brosschot, Miguel Kazén, Joshua A. Hicks, Olga Mitina, Dong Shanchuan, Ruta Lasauskaite, Nicolas Silvestrini, Patrizia Steca, Maria A. Padun, and Julius Kuhl22 April 2016 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 34, No. 1A Test Is Much More Than Just the Test ItselfSome Thoughts on Adaptation and EquivalenceSamuel Greiff and Dragos Iliescu17 July 2017 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 33, No. 3How to Make Sure Your Paper is Desk RejectedA Practical Guide to Rejection in EJPASamuel Greiff and Matthias Ziegler7 April 2017 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 33, No. 2Assessing future expectations and the two-dimensional model of affect in an Italian populationPsychiatry Research, Vol. 249The Field of Psychological Assessment: Where it Stands and Where it’s Going – A Personal Analysis of Foci, Gaps, and Implications for EJPA15 February 2017 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 33, No. 1Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8A Look Back and a Glimpse ForwardA Personal Exchange Between the Current and the Incoming Editor-in-Chief of EJPA23 November 2016 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 32, No. 4The Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scales-Long Self-Report and Observer Forms: Validation of the Catalan Version19 September 2015 | Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 38, No. 2Examining psychometric properties, measurement invariance, and construct validity of a short version of the Test to Measure Intercultural Competence (TMIC-S) in Germany and BrazilInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 49Discovering the Second Side of the CoinIntegrating Situational Perception into Psychological Assessment16 June 2015 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 31, No. 2Measuring Decision-Making Regret Among French PopulationsTranslation and Validation of the Regret Scale1 January 2014 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 31, No. 2English adaptation, international harmonisation, and normative validation of the Language Screening Test (LAST)8 October 2014 | Aphasiology, Vol. 29, No. 2Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) among Italian Nurses: How Many Factors Must a Researcher Consider?12 December 2014 | PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 12Stop and State Your Intentions!Let’s Not Forget the ABC of Test Construction7 November 2014 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 30, No. 4News Within the European Journal of Psychological AssessmentNever Change a Running System, or Change it?1 January 2013 | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 29, No. 4 Volume 29Issue 2May 2013ISSN: 1015-5759eISSN: 2151-2426 tabs.informationEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment (2013), 29, pp. 81-83 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000167.© 2013Hogrefe PublishingPDF download