Cited by 241Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and ValidationPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing Multiple Language Versions of Instruments for Intercultural Research

Open access
Erkut, Sumru·2010·Child Development Perspectives

Abstract

This article examines the strengths and weaknesses of several translation techniques currently in use through the lens of emerging opinions on the science and ethics of intercultural research. Broad scientific and ethical dimensions relevant to translating instruments and a distinction between generating multiple language forms of two kinds of instruments are introduced: those in which wording in the source language cannot be altered and those in which constraints of the target language can lead to changes in the original instrument’s wording. Developmental psychologists engaged in intercultural research can consider techniques for minimizing the influence of Western perspectives while pursuing conceptual equivalence in order to satisfy science’s concern for internal validity of translated instruments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00111.x

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Brislin, 1986, Cross-cultural research methodology series: Vol. 8. Field methods in cross-cultural psychology, 137
  2. Mapi Institute, Linguistic validation methodology
  3. Marshall, 2003, Connections ‘03, 139
  4. Maxwell, 1996, Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Tech. Rep.: Vol. I. Design and development, 1
  5. Sinha, 1984, Toward partnership for relevant research to the Third World, Indian Journal of Psychology, 19, 169
  6. World Health Organization, Process of translation and adaptation of instruments

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 241

Metadata

Authors
Erkut, S.
Affiliations
Wellesley Centers for Women (US)
Corresponding author
Erkut, Sumru
Venue
Child Development Perspectives
Published
2010-03-11
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
19-24
ISSN
  • 1750-8592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-8606
OpenAlex
W2057433716
Cited by
241
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Development Perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD030592)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
instrument translation, cross-cultural research, conceptual equivalence, translation strategies, internal validity, multilingual questionnaires

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