Tests, Translation of

Test Translation versus Test Adaptation

When converting a test to be used in another culture or for cross-cultural comparisons, the literal translation of the language of the test from one to the other is often a necessary but insufficient condition for the purpose. This is because there may be important cultural differences beyond linguistic differences between the two populations. Even in the absence of important cultural differences, there may be serious complications in linguistic differences. For example, for some nations, it may be difficult to identify the dominant language in the population since multiple dialects, or even languages, are used by the population. For another example, two literally equivalent words or expressions in two different languages may carry very different connotations and implications when used in the two cultures. Additionally, cultural differences may lead to differences in preferred test item formats, test administrative processes, testing procedures, and score interpretation practices. Many researchers therefore have considered the process of test translation inadequate to capture all the procedural considerations needed in converting an existing test for use in another culture. For this reason, the concept of test adaptation is considered more comprehensive and is theoretically preferred over the concept of test translation. The International Test Commission (ITC) views test translation as one of the processes needed in test adaptation. Nonetheless, in practice, the terms test translation and test adaptation are often used interchangeably in the literature.

Construct Equivalence

Ultimately, the appropriateness and effectiveness of a particular translation of a test is determined by whether the scores obtained from using a translated test reflect the same psychological construct or attribute as that reflected by the scores from the original test. When the same construct is retained in both versions, the two tests are said to be construct equivalent. There are a number of mutually complementary methods to evaluate whether a translated test is construct equivalent to the original test. These methods can be grouped into those that rely on expert or impartial judgments and those that rely on statistical analyses. When used alone, none of these methods is adequate to demonstrate construct equivalence. Thus, it is necessary to use several methods simultaneously to arrive at sufficient evidence to ascertain construct equivalence.

...