The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The diversity of the population worldwide suggests a great need for cross-culturally validated research instruments or scales. Researchers and clinicians must have access to reliable and valid measures of concepts of interest in their own cultures and languages to conduct cross-cultural research and/or provide quality patient care. Although there are well-established methodological approaches for translating, adapting and validating instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research, a great variation in the use of these approaches continues to prevail in the health care literature. Therefore, the objectives of this scholarly paper were to review published recommendations of cross-cultural validation of instruments and scales, and to propose and present a clear and user-friendly guideline for the translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural health care research. METHODS: A review of highly recommended methodological approaches to translation, adaptation and cross-cultural validation of research instruments or scales was performed. Recommendations were summarized and incorporated into a seven-step guideline. Each one of the steps was described and key points were highlighted. Example of a project using the proposed steps of the guideline was fully described. CONCLUSIONS: Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural research is very time-consuming and requires careful planning and the adoption of rigorous methodological approaches to derive a reliable and valid measure of the concept of interest in the target population.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We followed the back-translation procedure recommended for cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments (Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011).”
From Perceived Search Overload, Generative AI Credibility, and Comparative Usefulness: A Channel Complementarity Approach to Health Information Seeking (2025) · cites this paper as Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011
In the citing paper
“The original instrument was independently translated into French by two research groups in France and a French part of Switzerland. Both groups followed the guidelines for this type of procedure (Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011): Items were translated into French by two bilingual individuals, and an initial version was elaborated after a discussion between the translators. Furthermore, two bilingual”
From Measuring Decentering – Development and Validation of the French Version of the Experiences Questionnaire (EQ-F) (2024) · cites this paper as Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011
In the citing paper
“the translation and adaptation of the instrument could have benefited from considering extra methodological aspects in accordance with specialized guidelines”
From Psychometric properties of the engaged living scale (ELS) Spanish version in a large sample of Spanish pilgrims (2023) · cites this paper as Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Einax, J. W., Zwanziger, H. W., & Geiß, S. (1997) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/352760216x.ch5 · Cited by 18,779
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 · Cited by 14,542
Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Brislin, R. W. (1970) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/135910457000100301 · Cited by 14,091
Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences
Stevens, J. P. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203843130 · Cited by 10,652
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130 · Cited by 10,418
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20147 · Cited by 7,510 · cited 1×
“There are three methods to calculate S-CVI [20–22], but the averaging calculation (S-CVA/ Ave) method is preferred [22].”
MethodDetermination and Quantification Of Content Validity
LYNN, M. R. (1986) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · Cited by 6,775
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n · Cited by 6,060
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x · Cited by 5,521
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric Theory
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An arabic translation, reliability, and validation of Patient Health Questionnaire in a Saudi sample
AlHadi, A. N., AlAteeq, D. A., Al-Sharif, E., Bawazeer, H. M., Alanazi, H., AlShomrani, A. T., Shuqdar, R. M., & AlOwaybil, R. (2017) · Annals of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12991-017-0155-1 · Cited by 523
Cruchinho, P., López-Franco, M. D., Capelas, M. L., Almeida, S., Bennett, P. M., Miranda da Silva, M., Teixeira, G., Nunes, E., Lucas, P., & Gaspar, F. (2024) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s419714 · Cited by 469
Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Which One to Use First?
Orçan, F. (2018) · Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi · doi:10.21031/epod.394323 · Cited by 455
Sakib, N., Bhuiyan, A. K. M. I., Hossain, S., Al Mamun, F., Hosen, I., Abdullah, A. H., Sarker, M. A., Mohiuddin, M. S., Rayhan, I., Hossain, M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00289-x · Cited by 414
Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale
Alyami, M., Henning, M., Krägeloh, C. U., & Alyami, H. (2021) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00316-x · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Kansas (US)
- Graceland University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sousa, Valmi D.
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-09-28
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 268-274
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W1851740361
- Cited by
- 3,322
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 454 · 2025: 503 · 2024: 436 · 2023: 387 · 2022: 416 · 2021: 313 · 2020: 221 · 2019: 167 · 2018: 120 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 43.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Cultural Competency in Health Care
- Keywords
- cross-cultural validation, psychometric validation, validation guidelines, reliability and validity, patient-reported outcome measures
- MeSH terms
- Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
