CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 156Survey Methodology and NonresponseInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareHealth Education and Validation

Self report in clinical and epidemiological studies with non-English speakers: the challenge of language and culture

Open access
Hunt, Sanja M, Bhopal, Raj·2004·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
DOI 10.1136/jech.2003.010074PMC PMC1732826
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Internationally, there is a drive for equality in health care for ethnic groups. To achieve equality, produce sound policies, and provide appropriately targeted services good quality data are essential. Where data are based upon self report, especially from non-English speakers, there are major barriers to the accumulation of reliable and valid information. When data collection instruments designed for English speakers are simply translated into ethnic minority languages, measurement error can result from inadequate translation procedures, inappropriate content, insensitivity of items, and the failure of researchers to make themselves familiar with cultural norms and beliefs. More attention should be paid to conceptual and cultural factors especially in epidemiological and clinical studies where self report is used to gather data. More interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary as well as a modification of customary methods of data collection and the assumptions behind them. The essence of such modifications entails participatory research with members of the linguistic communities concerned.

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 · 10.1136/jech.2003.010074

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Adaptation of study materials into South Asian languages is challenging, time-consuming, costly, and not just a process of linguistic translation.

    “Study materials included adaptation into South Asian languages, which researchers state is challenging, time-consuming, costly, and not just a process of linguistic translation [63].”

    From British South Asian Patients’ Perspectives on the Relevance and Acceptability of Mobile Health Text Messaging to Support Medication Adherence for Type 2 Diabetes: Qualitative Study (2020) · cites this paper as [63]

    The ‘TRANSLATION AND ADAPTATION’ section describes a prolonged, multistage process and explains why linguistic equivalence alone is insufficient, including for Punjabi. The supplied passages do not say that adaptation is costly or establish the claim for South Asian languages as a group. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ware J, Sherborne C. The MOS short form health survey (SF36): international conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-81.
  2. Triandis H. Major theoretical and methodological issues in cross-cultural psychology. In: Davidson J, Louner W, eds. Readings in cross-cultural psychology. Hong Kong University Press, 1974:26-38.
  3. Leple `ge A, Ecosse E and the WHOQOL Rasch Project Scientific Committee. The analysis of four WHOQOL -100 data sets (Argentina, France, Hong- Kong, UK). Journal of Applied Measurement 2001;4:389-418.
  4. Fischbacher C, Hanna L, Bhopal R. International and cross-cultural comparisons of angina prevalence using the Rose Angina Questionnaire: have Rose's warnings been heeded? Joint conference of the international epidemiological association and society for social medicine, Oxford, 12-15 Sep.
  5. Cicourel A. Interview surveys and the problem of ecological validity. American Sociologist 1982;17:11-20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hunt, S. M., & Bhopal, R.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Bhopal, Raj
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-06-11
Volume
58
Issue
7
Pages
618-622
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
DOI
10.1136/jech.2003.010074
PMC
PMC1732826
OpenAlex
W2151714291
Cited by
156
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
FWCI
22.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ERA (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
self-report questionnaire, non-English speakers, ethnic minorities, language barriers, cultural sensitivity, questionnaire translation, measurement error, health disparities, participatory research
MeSH terms
Communication Barriers, Culture, Data Collection, Ethnicity, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Status, Humans, Language, Minority Groups, Self Concept, Translating, Epidemiologic Studies

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