Adaptation of Assessment Scales in Cross-National Research: Issues, Guidelines, and Caveats

Abstract

Increasingly, over the past 2 decades, there has been a growing interest in cross-national comparisons. This activity, in turn, has precipitated an escalating number of assessment scales being translated into other languages for use in countries and cultures that differ from those of the original scales (typically developed and normed in the United States). Recent criticism of these translated scales has highlighted the singularity of focus on linguistic equivalence albeit with little to no regard for equivalence of the measured constructs, relevance of item content, familiarity with item format, and insufficient rigor of the methodological strategy, thereby leading to serious biasing effects that ultimately yield a multiplicity of complexities in cross-national research and practice. Intended as an aid to researchers confronted with the task of translating and adapting an assessment scale for use in a country and culture that differs from that of the original scale, this article (a) highlights the critical importance of equivalence as it relates to the translated and adapted scale, in addition to the construct(s) it is designed to measure, (b) identifies the major threats to such equivalence and exemplifies several ways by which they can bias cross-national comparisons, (c) outlines a recommended series of psychometric analytic stages that can lead to both a close translation and a rigorously adapted assessment scale, (d) describes and explicates the hierarchical set of steps necessary in testing equivalence of the adapted instrument within and across national groups, and (e) presents the advantages and disadvantages of the adaptation approach recommended for use in this article.