Intercultural Scale Adaptation Stages, Language and Culture Adaptation: Updated Guideline
Open accessAbstract
The fact that many of the scales developed in English are translated requires much analysis in order to ensure equality of the scale in terms of culture and language. This assessment gains more importance with increasing language and cultural differences between the source country (where the scale was developed) and the target country. Additionally, there can be differences likely to affect the validity and reliability of the scale, even in cultures that are very similar in terms of level of development, social life, or values. Despite all these difficulties, the use of the adapted scale saves time, increases the generalization capacity of the data collected, and allows scholars to research the similarities and differences between the societies where the measurements are carried out. Also, valid and reliable tools contribute significant findings to measuring the outcomes of nursing care. However, two important questions need to be analyzed carefully before an adaptation is performed. The first question is whether or not the planned adaptation of the scale is truly necessary. The second question is whether or not the suggested scale for adaptation is really the best tool. How people express emotions, thoughts, and behaviors vary between societies. Therefore, any necessary changes should be made during the scale adaptation by taking into account the variable structure. The steps to be followed in the adaptation process are reduced to the following stages through the refinement of many studies by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). These stages are as follows: translation, expert committee assessment, back translation and pilot application. At each stage, there are points that require attention and are presented in the manuscript. This article aims to present information for providing equality of a scale that was adapted into Turkish not only linguistically, but also culturally and conceptually
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 and testing of measurement instruments across different international contexts saves time, facilitates quantitative comparisons between cultures over time, increases the generalizability of data, and contributes evidence for evaluating outcomes and developing effective interventions.
“The adaptation and testing of measurement instruments across different international contexts not only saves time required to develop a new measurement, but also facilitates quantitative comparisons between cultures over time. This helps to increase the generalizability of data and contribute to evidence for evaluating outcomes and developing effective interventions [27–29].”
From Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
The Extended Abstract (page unavailable) says adapted scales save time, increase the generalizability of collected data, and enable comparisons between societies. It also says valid and reliable tools help measure nursing-care outcomes. It does not specifically support comparisons over time or the development of effective interventions. (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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Ægisdóttir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Çinarbas, D. C. (2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Equivalence, bias, and translations. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(2), 188-219.
- Akbaş, G. ve Korkmaz, L. (2007). Ölçek uyarlaması (Adaptasyon). Türk Psikoloji Bülteni, 13(40), 15-16.
- Aksayan, S. ve Gözüm, S. (2002). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber I: Ölçek uyarlama aşamaları ve dil uyarlaması. Hemşirelik Araştırma Dergisi, 4(1), 9-14.
- Arafat, S. M. Y., Chowdhury, H. Z. R., Qusar, M. M. A. S., & Hafez, M. A. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5(3), 129-136.
- Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Cross- Cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia, 22(53), 423-432.
- Coster, W. J., & Mancini, M. C. (2015). Recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Revista de Terapia Ocupacional da Universidade de São Paulo, 26(1), 50-57.
- Erefe, İ. (2012). Veri toplama araçlarının niteliği. İ Erefe (Ed.), Hemşirelikte araştırma ilke süreç ve yöntemleri içinde (s. 169-187). Ankara: Odak Ofset.
- Erkuş, A. (2007). Ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama çalışmalarında karşılaşılan sorunlar. Türk Psikoloji Bülteni, 13(40), 17-25.
- Erkut, S. (2010). Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 19-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1750-8606.2009.00111.x · DOI · Paper page
- Esin, M. N. (2014). Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları & veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. S. Erdoğan, N. Nahcivan ve M. N. Esin (Ed.), Hemşirelikte araştırma: Süreç, uygulama ve kritik içinde (s.169-192). İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri.
- He, J., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross- cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2), 1-19.
- International Test Commission (ITN). (2018). Guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15305058. 2017.1398166. · DOI · Paper page
- Nilsson, J., Gardulf, A., & Lepp, M. (2016). Process of translation and adaptation of the Nurse Professional Competence (NPC) Scale. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(1), 100- 103.
- Scholz, D. B. U. E. (2011). Questionnaire translation in cross- national survey research. On the types and value of annotations. Methoden Daten Analysen, 5(2), 157-179.
- Yasir, A. S. M. (2016). Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of instruments: Step-wise description. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1(1), 1-4.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bayzat, C., & Dinc, L. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03503-0 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Çapık, C., & Gözüm, S.
- Venue
- Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing
- Publisher
- AVES YAYINCILIK A.Ş.
- Published
- 2018-10-26
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 199-210
- ISSN
- 2146-0639 (ISSN-L)
- 2687-6442
- OpenAlex
- W2898183808
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 55.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dergipark.org.tr
- Locations
- Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing (publishedVersion)
- DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
- Keywords
- scale adaptation, cross-cultural adaptation, translation, back-translation, pilot testing, psychometric reliability and validity, Turkish adaptation, nursing assessment tools, cultural equivalence
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
