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

Abstract

Over 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: 1. For what measurement purpose is the instrument designed (e.g., personnel selection, clinical assessment)? 2. What is the target population (e.g., adolescents, adults, patients)? 3. 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: 1. to make a particular instrument available in a different language, 2. to provide a means for cross-cultural research, 3. 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, Ludtke, 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 Germanas 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.