The TRAPD approach as a method for questionnaire translation
Open accessAbstract
Surveys and questionnaires are widely used in various areas of psychological and psychiatric research and practice. Many instruments have been used in several languages and across cultural contexts. A popular method of choice for their translation into another language involves translation and back-translation. Unfortunately, this method's ability to detect flaws in translation and necessities for cultural adaptation is limited. To address these shortcomings, the Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretest, and Documentation (TRAPD) approach of questionnaire translation from cross-cultural survey design has been developed. In this approach, several translators with different professional backgrounds translate the questionnaire on their own first and then come together to discuss their versions. Since the translators' expertise is required to vary (e.g., survey methodology experts, translation experts, expert knowledge in the questionnaire's topic) the team approach results in a high-quality translation as well as offering opportunities for cultural adaptation. This article illustrates the application of the TRAPD approach on the basis of the translation process of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire from English into German. Differences and advantages are discussed.
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?
The translation of the scoring rubric from English to Japanese followed the translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation model.
“The translation process was conducted based on the translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation model [44].”
From AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students’ Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study (2026) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 69
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [2]Bühner M. Einführung in Die Test-Und Fragebogenkonstruktion. 3rd ed. München: Pearson (2011).
- [16]Petermann F. WAIS-IV. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. 4th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Pearson Learning (2012).
- Authors
- Walde, P., & Völlm, B. A.
- Affiliations
- Universitätsmedizin Rostock (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Walde, Peggy
- ORCID
- Walde, Peggy
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-06-15
- Volume
- 14
- Pages
- 1199989-1199989
- ISSN
- 1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10309006
- OpenAlex
- W4380680751
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 29.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- questionnaire translation, cross-cultural adaptation, translation and back-translation, cultural adaptation, English-German translation
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
