Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Part 5 Test Adaptations 1. Conceptualizations 2. Example
What is the central issue in translations/adaptations? Producing instruments that measure target constructs adequately in target cultures
A Note on Terminology • Translation • Conventional term, still often used • Adaptation • Has become generic term for modern translation practices • Based on increased sensitivity for non-linguistic factors in translations, such as cultural norms of address, relevance of thorough knowledge of target culture
Main Applications of Translations/Adaptations • Comparative Studies • Comparison of construct or mean scores across cultures • High demands on comparability of scores • Maximizing comparability • Monocultural studies in target culture • Main issue is ensuring validity in new context • Few demands on comparability scores • Maximizing local suitability
Translations in Historical Perspective Stage 1: Close translations were standard practice Techniques were developed (e.g., translation back translation) Important societal developments: Globalization and migration (multi-ethnic societies) Stage 2: Increasing appreciation that close translations have problems, e.g., Grade 12 = Form 6 = ……? Need for adaptations, localizations Need for standardization of adaptation procedures
What is a Good Translation/ Adaptation? Dependent on perspective Linguistic perspective Psychological perspective Mapping problem: Translating/adapting can be seen as finding an optimal mapping of text in two languages What is a good mapping? A good mapping shows equivalence of the original and translation
Example What is the American equivalent of the Dutch item “Hoe heet de koningin van Nederland?” (Suppose that item is part of a test of crystallized intelligence) Literal/close translation: What is the name of the queen of the Netherlands?” Problem: Item more difficult for American children than for Dutch children Adaptation: “What is the name of the president of the USA?” Problem: Queen and president are not equally known in their respective countries
What Does “Equivalent” Mean? Eusebius Hieronymus (St. Jerome, famous bible translator from Greek and Hebrew to Latin; ±347—419/420): 2 types of translations: “words” and “meanings” (he favored the latter) Here two types of equivalence relevant: linguistic mapping/equivalence psychological }
Linguistic Equivalence (Broader than similarity of words) Linguistic equivalence refers to similarity of linguistic features of a text. Examples of relevant linguistic features are: Lexical similarity Grammatical accuracy In general: emphasis on formal-textual characteristics (cf. automatic translations)
Psychological Equivalence Psychological equivalence refers to similarity of (psychological) meaning and scores Similarity in a broad sense: Textual, e.g., Connotation of words, implied context of text Comprehensibility Metrical: Score comparability
Relationship between Two Perspectives Three possible relations between linguistic and psychological features, depending on the overlap: c. none a. complete b. partial psych. linguistic Essentially non-translatable Translatable Poorly translatable
Translatability A psychological test/item is Well translatable if linguistic and psychological features yield the same translation Poorly translatable if linguistic and psychological features do not entirely converge (e.g., translation of slang: meaning is translatable, but conciseness is lost) Non-translatable if there is a complete or nearly complete nonoverlap (e.g., Jabberwocky)
Jabberwocky (Lewis Carroll, 1871) Illustration by John Tenniel 'Twas brillig, and the slithy tovesDid gyre and gimble in the wabe;All mimsy were the borogoves,And the mome raths outgrabe."Beware the Jabberwock, my son!The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!Beware the Jubjub bird, and shunThe frumious Bandersnatch!"
Framework for Translations/Adaptations Need for a theoretical—methodological framework that links all stages of a project Bias and equivalence as key concepts
Steps in Designing Cross-Cultural Tests (Hambleton & Patsula, 1999) • Ensure that construct equivalence exists in the language and cultural groups of interest. • Decide whether to adapt an existing test or develop a new test. • Select well-qualified translators. • Translate and adapt the test. • Review the adapted version of the test and make necessary revisions. • Conduct a small tryout of the adapted version of the test. • Carry out a more ambitious field-test. • Choose a statistical design for connecting scores on the source and target language versions of the test. • If cross-cultural comparisons are of interest, ensure equivalence of the language versions of the test. • Perform validation research, as appropriate. • Document the process and prepare a manual for the users of the adapted tests. • Train users. • Monitor experiences with the adapted test, and make appropriate revisions.
Overview of Common Procedures to Examine Accuracy of Translations/ Adaptations Procedures as opportunities to strengthen the quality of a translation/adaptation project Two taxonomies presented here: common: (back) translations vs. committee approach use of existing/new material
Theoretical and Methodological Background Crucial concept in translations is equivalence: Linguistic Mapping of linguistic meaning (word meaning, sentence meaning) Psychological Mapping of psychological meaning (serves the same psychological function in all languages?) A good translation combines these considerations
Options Adoption (Close “literal” translation) Advantage: maintains metric equivalence Disadvantage: adequacy (too) readily assumed, should be demonstrated Adaptation (changing contents of one or more items so as to increase cultural appropriateness) Advantage: more flexible, more tailored to the context Disadvantage: fewer statistical techniques available to compare scores across cultures Assembly (composing a new instrument) Advantage: very flexible Disadvantage: almost no comparability maintained
What is the Best Option? One type is not intrinsically better or worse than another Main question is NOT What is globally the best choice? BUT What is the best choice in a specific case?
Adaptation Perspectives Construct Culture Indicator Integration Language Measurement
A good translation/adaptation combines equivalence perspectives What is a good translation/ adaptation? A translation or adaptation is good when it combines high levels of construct, cultural, linguistic, and measurement equivalence.
Is There a Best Way to Translate an Instrument? Simple items often straightforward to translate Close translations will do well, various kinds of equivalence jointly maximized More complex items often require choices about which equivalence will be maximized: Maximizing comparability or cultural appropriateness ?
Different perspectives on equivalence often, but not always compatible Example: cross-cultural differences in modes of address Maximizing linguistic equivalence may challenge cultural appropriateness (e.g., requests may be too direct) Maximizing cultural appropriateness may challenge statistical equivalence (e.g., rephrasing may threaten comparability of scores)
Subtests: • Atlantis • Number Recall • Rover • Triangles • Word Order • Pattern Reasoning • Story Completion replaced by adaptation of WISC(/-R/-III) Picture Arrangement
1. Example Construct-Driven Problems with the behaviors or attitudes associated with the construct or with communication norms pertaining to these behaviors or attitudes Usage of somatic and psychological symptoms in depression inventories Differential norms in allowance to express psychological symptoms across cultures
Patel, Abas, Broadhead, Todd, & Reeler (2001) In Zimbabwe, multiple somatic complaints such as headaches and fatigue are the most common presentations of depression. On inquiry, however, most patients freely admit to cognitive and emotional symptoms. Many somatic symptoms, especially those related to the heart and the head, are cultural metaphors for fear or grief. Most depressed individuals attribute their symptoms to “thinking too much” (kufungisisa), to a supernatural cause, and to social stressors. Our data confirm the view that although depression in developing countries often presents with somatic symptoms, most patients do not attribute their symptoms to a somatic illness and cannot be said to have “pure” somatisation. This means that it is vital to understand the culture specific terminology used by patients and to assess mood in those with multiple somatic complaints. Consequence Common western measures of depression will under-diagnose depression in Shona speakers.
2. Example Culture-Driven Example: ‘Burglar’ (Picture Arrangement; adapted for use in low-SES children in Bangalore, India ) • Problems: • Unclear whether the burglar was getting in or getting out; • Man not recognized as burglar; • Window was not recognized (vertically moving windows are uncommon in India) Malda, Van de Vijver, Srinivasan, Transler (2008): Adapting a Western Cognitive Test for a Non-Western Context: The KABC-II in Bangalore, India 33
Example: Do you often feel distressed? Translation to Dutch: “Distressed” does not have an equivalent word in Dutch Possible solutions Composite of different emotions in Dutch; ask for frequency of composite (“how often do you feel X and Y?”). Problem: composite may not be recognizable Choose a single emotion that is as close as possible; problem: change of item content if no close match can be found Describe the emotion in the item (e.g., vignette); problem: may require a similar description in English original Need to check adequacy of chosen solution in statistical analysis Combination of judgmental and statistical evidence crucial in instruments that are more difficult to translate/adapt 3. Example of Language-Driven Adaptation
Language and test content: • Adaptation of words in subtest Atlantis: • Kannada nonsense words (e.g., English ‘Dablee’ Kannada ‘Ribu’) • Important: number of syllables • Adaptation of digits in subtest Number Recall • based on number of syllables (1 in English version; first 2 and then 3 in Kannada version)
4. Example of Measurement-Driven Adaptation (Unfamiliarity) Kaufman ABC used in Bangalore (Kannada-speaking children) Adaptation of words insubtest Word Order based on: Unfamiliarity and ambiguity of objects and words Number of syllables Original version Kannada version 36 Malda, Van de Vijver, Srinivasan, Transler (in review): Adapting a Western Cognitive Test for a Non-Western Context: The KABC-II in Bangalore, India
Original version Kannada version Problem: word for star in Kannada is too long, English word “star” is well known but too short (monosyllabic)
Original version Kannada version • Problems: • Key was often called ice cream; • English word “key” was often used, which is too short (monosyllabic)
Original version Kannada version Problem: original drawing was not easily recognized as house, distinguishing features added
Example: ‘Painting’ Problem: mirror was not recognized
Rover • Test content: • Additional instructions in subtest Rover • One additional instruction in subtest Pattern Reasoning • Slight change of subtest composition and item order in subtest Triangles Sample item Original version Sample item Indian version Problem: original sample item was too difficult; this item has been added as actual test item
Background Reading (1) (2)