Affiliation:
1. Tilburg University, The Netherlands
2. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA
Abstract
With the increasing interest in cross-cultural research, there is a growing need for standard and validated practices for translating psychological instruments. Developing a psychologically acceptable instrument for another cultural group almost always requires more effort than a literal translation, which all too often is the common practice. The adequacy of translations can be threatened by various sources of bias. Three types of bias are distinguished in this paper: (1) construct bias (related to nonequivalence of constructs across cultural groups), (2) method bias (resulting from instrument administration problems), and (3) item bias (often a result of inadequate translations such as incorrect word choice). Ways in which bias can affect the adequacy of instruments are illustrated and possible remedies are discussed.
Subject
General Psychology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
Reference30 articles.
1. A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The Coping Strategy Indicator.
2. Factor comparison: An examination of three methods
3. Brislin, R.W.
(1980).
Translation and content analysis of oral and written
material.
In H.C. Triandis & J.W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
4. Brislin, R.W.
(1986).
The wording and translation of research
instruments.
In W.J. Lonner & J.W. Berry
(Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural
research (pp. 137-164). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage
5. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Cited by
894 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献