PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15369498

Instrument translation process: a methods review.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural and international collaborative studies are needed in nursing research. Therefore, it is necessary to translate research instruments into the language of the culture being studied. In this methods review, different processes of instrument translation and evaluation of translation adequacy in published nursing research are described and classified into a hierarchy. METHODS: Studies including translation of quantitative research instruments were reviewed. Forty-seven studies were included. These were classified into six categories. RESULTS: Studies were classified into categories as follows: forward-only translation (2), forward-only translation with testing (7), back-translation (13), back-translation with monolingual test (18), back-translation with bilingual test (3), and back-translation with both monolingual and bilingual test (4). Strengths and weaknesses are analysed. CONCLUSION: The studies reviewed used diverse methods of varying quality. There is need for consensus among researchers in how to achieve quality of instrument translation in cross-cultural research. Researchers should carefully attend to achieving and reporting evidence of the accuracy and validity of instrument translation. When back-translation fails to achieve semantic equivalence, the instrument development process should be replicated in the target language.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wantana Maneesriwongul, Jane K Dixon. 2004. Instrument translation process: a methods review.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cross-cultural organizational behavior.

This article reviews research on cross-cultural organizational behavior (OB). After a brief review of the history of cross-cultural OB, we review research on work motivation, or the factors that energize, direct, and sustain effort across cultures. We next consider the relationship between the individual and the organization, and review research on culture and organizational commitment, psychological contracts, justice, citizenship behavior, and person-environment fit. Thereafter, we consider how individuals manage their interdependence in organizations, and review research on culture and negotiation and disputing, teams, and leadership, followed by research on managing across borders and expatriation. The review shows that developmentally, cross-cultural research in OB is coming of age. Yet we also highlight critical challenges for future research, including moving beyond values to explain cultural differences, attending to levels of analysis issues, incorporating social and organizational context factors into cross-cultural research, taking indigenous perspectives seriously, and moving beyond intracultural comparisons to understand the dynamics of cross-cultural interfaces.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗

Ethnic minorities and prescription medication; concordance between self-reports and medical records.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in health care utilisation are frequently reported in research. Little is known about the concordance between different methods of data collection among ethnic minorities. The aim of this study was to examine to which extent ethnic differences between self-reported data and data based on electronic medical records (EMR) from general practitioners (GPs) might be a validity issue or reflect a lower compliance among minority groups. METHODS: A cross-sectional, national representative general practice study, using EMR data from 195 GPs. The study population consisted of Dutch, Turks, Surinamese, Antilleans and Morrocans. Self-reported data were collected through face-to-face interviews and could be linked to the EMR of GPs. The main outcome measures were the level of agreement between annual prescribing rate based on the EMRs of GPs and the self-reported receipt and use of prescriptions during the preceding 14 days. RESULTS: The pattern of ethnic differences in receipt and use of prescription medication depended on whether self-reported data or EMR data were used. Ethnic differences based on self-reports were not consistently reflected in EMR data. The percentage of agreement above chance between EMR data and self-reported receipt was in general relative low. CONCLUSION: Ethnic differences between self-reported data and EMR data might not be fully perceived as a cross-cultural validity issue. At least for Moroccans and Turks, compliance with the prescribed medication by the GP is suggested not to be optimal.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗