Country Validation of the CLES-Scale: Linguistic and Cultural Perspectives

Vizcaya-Moreno, María Flores; Pérez-Cañaveras, Rosa M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63649-8_4

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 151 The decision procedure on the harmonization of items that seeks to articulate the search for conceptual equivalence with functional equivalence is the Dual-Focus. 75 , 157 , 161 Its use is important in cross-cultural validation studies where the instruments use a specific terminology with which some translators are not familiar. Several studies reporting the substitution of words and items as a consequence of the cross-cultural adaptation process have underlined this procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these situations, decentering and Dual Focus can be used. 75 Decentering is a translation procedure that does not require a literal translation, which is used to achieve idiomatic, grammatical-syntactical, experiential and conceptual equivalence between the two cultures. 6 Dual-Focus involves replacing items or parts of items with more appropriate ones in the “target language” in order to mitigate the difficulty of adapting certain content from the “source culture”.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers

Cruchinho,

López-Franco,

Capelas

et al. 2024

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-cultural validation of self-reported measurement instruments for research is a long and complex process, which involves specific risks of bias that could affect the research process and results. Furthermore, it requires researchers to have a wide range of technical knowledge about the translation, adaptation and pre-test aspects, their purposes and options, about the different psychometric properties, and the required evidence for their assessment and knowledge about the quantitative data processing and analysis using statistical software. This article aimed: 1) identify all guidelines and recommendations for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation within the healthcare sciences; 2) describe the methodological approaches established in these guidelines for conducting translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation; and 3) provide a practical guideline featuring various methodological options for novice researchers involved in translating, adapting, and validating measurement instruments. Forty-two guidelines on translation, adaptation, or cross-cultural validation of measurement instruments were obtained from “CINAHL with Full Text” (via EBSCO) and “MEDLINE with Full Text”. A content analysis was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the methodological approaches recommended. Bases on these similarities and differences, we proposed an eight-step guideline that includes: a) forward translation; 2) synthesis of translations; 3) back translation; 4) harmonization; 5) pre-testing; 6) field testing; 7) psychometric validation, and 8) analysis of psychometric properties. It is a practical guideline because it provides extensive and comprehensive information on the methodological approaches available to researchers. This is the first methodological literature review carried out in the healthcare sciences regarding the methodological approaches recommended by existing guidelines.

show abstract