Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling Research

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/247737198
Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural

Counseling Research
Article in The Counseling Psychologist · March 2008

DOI: 10.1177/0011000007305384
CITATIONS READS
76 901
3 authors:
Stefania Aegisdottir Lawrence H. Gerstein

Ball State University Ball State University
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,111 CITATIONS 114 PUBLICATIONS 1,406 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Deniz Canel Cinarbas

Middle East Technical University
11 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Cross cultural adaptation of the Beliefs About Psychological Services scale for Iceland View project
Cross cultural counseling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefania Aegisdottir on 20 March
2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
The Counseling Psychologist
http://tcp.sagepub.com
Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling

Research: Equivalence, Bias, and Translations
Stefanía Ægisdóttir, Lawrence H. Gerstein and Deniz Canel Çinarbas
The Counseling Psychologist 2008; 36; 188 originally published online Oct
9, 2007;
DOI: 10.1177/0011000007305384
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/2/188
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association
Additional services and information for The Counseling Psychologist can be found
at:
Email Alerts: http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/36/2/188
Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural
Counseling Research:
Equivalence, Bias, and Translations

Stefanía Ægisdóttir
Lawrence H. Gerstein
Deniz Canel Çinarba¸
Ball State University
Concerns about the cross-cultural validity of constructs are discussed, including equiv-
alence, bias, and translation procedures. Methods to enhance equivalence are
described, as are strategies to evaluate and minimize types of bias. Recommendations
for translat-ing instruments are also presented. To illustrate some challenges of cross-
cultural coun-seling research, translation procedures employed in studies published in
five counseling journals are evaluated. In 15 of 615 empirical articles, a translation of
instruments was performed. In 9 studies, there was some effort to enhance and evaluate
equivalence between language versions of the measures employed. In contrast, 2
studies did not report using thorough translation and verification procedures, and 4
studies employed a mod-erate degree of rigorousness. Suggestions for strengthening
translation methodologies and enhancing the rigor of cross-cultural counseling
research are provided. To conduct cross-culturally valid research and deliver
culturally appropriate services, counseling psychologists must generate and rely on
methodologically sound cross-cultural studies. This article provides a schema for
performing such studies.
There is growing interest in international issues in the counseling profes-

sion. There are more publications about cross-cultural issues in counsel-ing
and the role of counseling outside of the United States (Gerstein, 2005;
Gerstein & Ægisdóttir, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Leong & Blustein, 2000;
Leong & Ponterotto, 2003; Leung, 2003; Ægisdóttir & Gerstein, 2005).
Greater attention also has been paid to counseling international individuals
living in the United States (Fouad, 1991; Pedersen, 1991). Confirming this
trend is the focus of Division 17’s past president (2003 to 2004), Louise
Douce, on the globalization of counseling psychology. Douce encouraged
developing a strategic plan to enhance the profession’s global effort and
facilitate a “move-ment that transcends nationalism” (Douce, 2004, p. 145).
She also stressed questioning the validity and applicability of our
Eurocentric paradigms and the hegemony of such paradigms. Instead, she
claimed our paradigms must integrate and evolve from indigenous models.
P. Puncky Heppner continued Douce’s effort as part of his Division 17
presidential initiative. Heppner (2006) claimed, “Cross-national
relationships
THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 36 No. 2, March 2008 188-219

DOI: 10.1177/0011000007305384
© 2008 by the Division of Counseling Psychology.
188
Ægisdóttir et al. / CROSS-CULTURAL VALIDITY 189
have tremendous potential to enhance the basic core of the science and
practice of counseling psychology, both domestically and internationally”
(p. 147). He also predicted, “In the future, counseling psychology will no
longer be defined as counseling psychology within the United States, but
rather, the parameters of counseling psychology will cross many countries
and many cultures” (Heppner, 2006, p. 170).
Although an international focus in counseling is important, there are
many challenges (cf. Douce, 2004; Heppner, 2006; Pedersen, 2003). This
article discusses methodological challenges, especially as related to the
translation and adaptation of instruments for use in international and cross-
cultural studies and their link to equivalence and bias. While there has been
discussion in the counseling psychology literature about the benefits and
challenges of cross-cultural counseling and the risks of simply applying
Western theories and strategies cross-culturally, we were unable to locate
publications in our literature detailing how to perform cross-culturally valid
research. There is literature, however, in other areas of psychology (e.g.,
cross-cultural, social, international) that addresses these topics. This article
draws from this literature to introduce counseling psychologists to some
concepts, methods, and issues when conducting cross-cultural research. We
also extend this literature by discussing the potential use of cross-cultural
methodologies in counseling research.
As a way to illustrate some challenges of cross-cultural research, we also
examine, analyze, and evaluate translation practices employed in five
prominent counseling journals to determine the translation procedures
counseling researchers have used and the methods employed to minimize
bias and evaluate equivalence. Finally, we offer recommendations about
translation methodology and ways to increase validity in cross-cultural
counseling research.
METHODOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND ISSUES

IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH
Approaches to Studying Culture

There are numerous definitions of culture in anthropology and counsel-
ing psychology. Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, and Alexander (1995) con-
cluded that for most scholars, culture is a learned system of meaning and
behavior passed from one generation to the next. When studying cultural
influences on behavior, counseling psychologists may approach cultural
variables and the design of research from three different angles using the
indigenous, the cultural, and the cross-cultural approach (Triandis, 2000).
190 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / March 2008
According to Triandis, when using the indigenous approach, researchers are

mainly interested in the meaning of concepts in a culture and how such
meaning may change across demographics within a cultural context (e.g.,
what does counseling mean in this culture?). With this approach, psychol-
ogists often study their own culture with the goal of benefiting people in that
culture. The focus of such studies is the development of a psychology
tailored to a specific culture without a focus on generalization outside of that
cultural context (cf. Adamopolous & Lonner, 2001). The main chal-lenge
with the indigenous approach is the difficulty in avoiding existing
psychological concepts, theories, and methodologies and therefore deter-
mining what is indigenous (Adamopolous & Lonner, 2001).
Triandis (2000) contended with the cultural approach; in contrast, psy-
chologists often study cultures other than their own by using ethnographic
methods. True experimental methods can also be used within this approach
(van de Vijver, 2001). Again, the meanings of constructs in a culture are the
main focus without direct comparison of constructs across cultures. The aim
is to advance the understanding of persons in a sociocultural context and to
emphasize the importance of culture in understanding behavior
(Adamopolous & Lonner, 2001). The challenge with this approach is a lack
of widely accepted research methodology (Adamopolous & Lonner, 2001).
Last, Triandis (2000) stated that when using cross-cultural approaches,
psychologists obtain data in two or more cultures assuming the constructs
under investigation exist in all of the cultures studied. Here, researchers are
interested in how a construct affects behavior differently or similarly across
cultures. Thus, one implication of this approach is an increased
understanding of the cross-cultural validity and generalizability of the
theories and/or constructs. The main challenge with this approach is
demonstrating equivalence of constructs and measures used in the target
cultures and also minimizing biases that may threaten valid cross-cultural
comparisons.
In sum, indigenous and cultural approaches focus on the emics, or things
unique to a culture. These approaches are relativistic in that the aim is
studying the local context and meaning of constructs without imposing a
priori definitions of the constructs (Tanaka-Matsumi, 2001). Scholars rep-
resenting these approaches usually reject claims that psychological theories
are universal (Kim, 2001). In the cross-cultural approach, in contrast, the
focus is on the etics, or factors common across cultures (Brislin, Lonner, &
Thorndike, 1973). Here the goal is to understand similarities and differ-
ences across cultures, and the comparability of cross-cultural categories or
dimensions is emphasized (Tanaka-Matsumi, 2001).
Methodological Challenges in Cross-Cultural Research

Scholars from diverse psychology disciplines have pursued cross-cultural
research for decades, and as a result, a literature on cross-cultural research
methodologies and challenges emerged (e.g., Berry, 1969; Brislin, 1976;
Brislin et al., 1973; Lonner & Berry, 1986; Triandis, 1976; van de Vijver,
2001; van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Based on this work, our article identifies some methodological challenges
faced by cross-cultural researchers. Before proceeding, note that the
challenges summarized below refer to any cross-cultural comparison of
psychological constructs (within [e.g., ethnic groups] and between
countries). These chal-lenges are greater, though, in cross-cultural
comparisons requiring transla-tion of instruments.
Equivalence
Equivalence is a key concept in cross-cultural psychology. It addresses
the question of comparability of observations (test scores) across cultures
(van de Vijver, 2001). Several definitions or forms of equivalence have been
reported. Lonner (1985), for instance, discussed four types: functional,
concep-tual, metric, and linguistic. Functional equivalence refers to the
function the behavior under study (e.g., counselor empathy) has in different
cultures. If similar behaviors or activities (e.g., smiling) have different
functions in var-ious cultures, their parameters cannot be used for cross-
cultural comparison (Jahoda, 1966; Lonner, 1985). In comparison,
conceptual equivalence refers to the similarity in meaning attached to a
behavior or concept (Lonner, 1985; Malpass & Poortinga, 1986). Certain
behaviors and concepts (e.g., help seeking) may vary in meaning across
cultures. Metric equivalence refers to psycho-metric properties of the tool
(e.g., Self-Directed Search) used to measure the same construct across
cultures. It is assumed if psychometric data from two or more cultural
groups have the same structure (Malpass & Poortinga, 1986). Finally,
linguistic equivalence has to do with wording of items (form, meaning, and
structure) in different language versions of an instrument, the reading
difficulty of the items, and the “naturalness” of the items in the trans-lated
form (Lonner, 1985; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Van de Vijver and his colleagues (van de Vijver, 2001; van de Vijver &
Leung, 1997) also discussed four types of equivalence representing a hier-
archical order from absence to higher degree of equivalence. The first type,
construct nonequivalence, refers to constructs (e.g., cultural syndromes)
being so dissimilar across cultures they cannot be compared. Under these
circumstances, no link exists between the constructs. The next three types of
equivalence demonstrate some equivalence with the higher level in the
hierarchy presupposing a lower level. These are construct (or structural),

measurement unit, and scalar equivalence.
At the lowest level is construct equivalence. A scale has construct
equivalence if it measures the same underlying construct across cultural
groups. Construct equivalence has been demonstrated for many constructs in
psychology (e.g., NEO Personality Inventory-Revised five-factor model of
personality; McCrae & Costa, 1997). With construct equivalence, the
constructs (e.g., extraversion) are considered having the same meaning and
nomological network across cultures (relationships between constructs,
hypotheses, and measures; e.g., Betz, 2005) but need not be operationally
defined the same way for each cultural group (e.g., van de Vijver, 2001). For
instance, two emic measures of attitudes toward counseling may tap
different indicators of attitudes in each culture, and therefore, the measures
may include different items but at the same time be structurally equivalent,
as they both measure the same dimensions of counseling attitudes and
predict help seeking. Yet as their measurement differs, a direct comparison
of average test scores across cultures using a t test or ANOVA, for example,
cannot be performed. The measures lack scalar equivalence (see below).
Construct equivalence is often demonstrated using exploratory and
confirma-tory factor analyses and structural equation modeling (SEM) to
discern the similarities and differences of constructs’ structure and their
nomological networks across cultures.
The next level of equivalence is measurement-unit equivalence (van de
Vijver, 2001; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). With this type of equivalence,
the measurement scales of the tools are equivalent (e.g., interval level), but
their origins are different across groups. While mean scores from scales with
this level of equivalence can be compared to examine individual dif-ferences
within groups (e.g., using t test), because of different origin, com-paring
mean scores (e.g., t test) between groups from scales at this level will not
provide a valid comparison. For example, Kelvin and Celsius scales have
equivalent measurement units (interval scales) but measure tempera-ture
differently—they have a different origin and, thus, direct comparison of
temperature using these two scales cannot be done. But because of a con-
stant difference between these two scales, comparability may be possible
(i.e., K = C - 273). The known constant or value offsetting the scales makes
them comparable (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Such known constants are
difficult to discern in studies of human behavior, rendering scores at this
level often incomparable. A clear analogy in counseling psychology is using
different cut scores for various groups (e.g., gender) on instruments as an
indicator of some criteria or an underlying trait. Different cut scores (or
standard scores) are used because instruments do not show equivalence
beyond the measurement unit. That is, some bias affects the origin of the

scale for one group relative to the other, limiting raw score comparability
between the groups. For example, a raw score of 28 on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 MacAndrew Alcohol Scale-Revised
(Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 2001) does not mean
the same thing for women as it does for men. For women, this score indi-
cates more impulsiveness and greater risk for substance abuse than it does
for men (Greene, 2000). A less clear example but extremely important to
cross-cultural research involves two language versions of the same psycho-
logical instrument. Here the origins of the two language versions of the scale
may appear the same (both versions include the same interval rating scale
for the items). This assumption, however, may be threatened if the two
cultural groups responding to this measure vary in their familiarity with
Likert-type answer formats (method bias; see later). Because of the differ-
ential familiarity with this type of stimuli, the origin of the measurement unit
is not the same for both groups. Similarly, if the two cultural groups vary in
response style (e.g., acquiescence), a score of 2 on a 5-point scale may not
mean the same for both groups. In these examples, the source or the origin
of the scale is different in the two language versions, compro-mising valid
cross-cultural comparison.
Finally, and at the highest level of equivalence, is scalar equivalence or
full score comparability. Equivalent instruments at the scalar level measure a
con-cept with the same interval or ratio scale across cultures, and the origins
of the scales are the same. Therefore, at this level, bias has been ruled out,
and direct cross-cultural comparisons of average scores on an instrument can
be made (e.g., van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
According to van de Vijver (2001), it can be difficult to discern if
measures are equivalent at the measurement-unit or scalar level. This
challenge is observed in comparison of scale scores between cultural groups
responding to the same language version of an instrument as well as
between different language versions of a measure. As an example of this
difficulty, when using the same language version of an instrument, racial
differences in intelligence test scores can be interpreted as representing true
differences in intelligence (scalar equivalence has been reached) and as an
artifact of the measures (measurement-unit equivalence has been reached).
In the latter, the measurement units are the same, but they have different
origins because of various biases, hindering valid comparisons across
different racial groups. In this instance, valid comparisons at the ratio level
(comparing mean scores) cannot be done. Higher levels of equivalence are
more diffi-cult to establish. It is, for instance, easier to show that an
instrument mea-sures the same construct across cultures (construct
equivalence) by showing a similar factor structure and nomological
networks than it is to demon-strate the instruments’ numerical comparability
(scalar equivalence). The
higher the level of equivalence, though, the more detailed analysis can be
performed on cross-cultural similarities and differences (van de Vijver,
2001; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Levels of equivalence for measures used in cross-cultural counseling
research should be established and reported in counseling psychology pub-
lications. It is not until the equivalence of the concepts under study have
been determined that a meaningful cross-cultural comparison can be made.
Without demonstrated equivalence, numerous rival hypotheses (e.g., poor
translation) may account for observed cross-cultural differences.
Bias
Another important concept in cross-cultural research is bias. Bias
negatively influences equivalence and refers to nuisance factors, limiting the
compara-bility or scalar equivalence of observations (test scores) across
cultural groups (van de Vijver, 2001; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997; van de
Vijver & Poortinga, 1997). Typical sources of bias are construct, method,
and item bias. A con-struct bias occurs when the construct measured as a
whole (e.g., intelli-gence) is not identical across cultural groups. Potential
sources for this type of bias are when there is different coverage of the
construct across cultures (i.e., not all relevant behavioral domains are
sampled), an incomplete overlap of how the construct is defined across
cultures, and when the appropriate-ness of item content differs between two
language versions of an instrument (cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997; van de
Vijver & Poortinga, 1997). A serious construct bias equates to construct
nonequivalence.
Even though a construct is well represented in multilingual versions of a
scale (construct equivalence, e.g., similar factor structure, and there is no
construct bias, e.g., complete coverage of construct), bias may still exist in
the scores, resulting in measurement-unit or scalar nonequivalence (van de
Vijver & Leung, 1997). This may be a result of method bias. Method bias
can stem from characteristics of the instrument or from its administration
(van de Vijver, 2001; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997; van de Vijver &
Poortinga, 1997). Possible sources of this bias are differential response
styles (e.g., social desirability) across cultures (e.g., Johnson, Kulesa, Cho,
& Shavitt, 2005), variations in familiarity with the type of stimuli or scale
across cultures, communication problems between investigators and partici-
pants, and differences in physical conditions under which the instrument is
administered across cultures. Method bias can also limit cross-cultural com-
parisons when samples drawn from different cultures are not comparable
(e.g., prior experiences).
Item bias may also exist, posing a threat to cross-cultural comparison
(scalar equivalence). This type of bias refers to measurement at the item
level.
This bias has several potential sources. It can result from poor translation or
poor item formulation (e.g., complex wording) and because item content
may not be equally relevant or appropriate for the cultural groups being
compared (e.g., Malpass & Poortinga, 1986; van de Vijver & Poortinga,
1997). An item on an instrument is considered biased if persons from
different cultures having the same standing on the underlying characteristic
(trait or state) measured yield different average item scores on the
instrument.
Finally, bias can be considered uniform and nonuniform. A uniform bias
refers to any type of bias affecting all score levels on an instrument equally
(van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). For instance, when measuring persons’
intelligence, the scale may be accurate for one group but may consistently
reflect 10 points too much for another group. The 10-point difference would
appear at different intelligence levels (a true score of 90 would be 100, and a
true score of 120 would be 130). A nonuniform bias is any type of bias
differentially affecting different score levels. In measuring persons’
intelligence, the scale may again be accurate for one group, but for the other
group, 10 points are recorded as 12 points. The difference in measured
intelligence for persons whose true score is 90 would be a score of 108 (18-
point difference), whereas for persons whose true score is 110, the differ-
ence is 22 points (a score of 132). The distortion is greater at higher levels
on the scale. Nonuniform bias is considered a greater threat in cross-cultural
comparisons than uniform bias, as it influences the origin and measurement
unit (scale) of a scale. Uniform bias affects only the origin of a scale (cf. van
de Vijver, 1998, 2001).
Relationship Between Bias and Equivalence

Bias and equivalence are closely related. When two or more language
versions of an instrument are unbiased (construct, method, item), they are
determined equivalent on a scale level. Bias will lower a measure’s level of
equivalence (construct, measurement unit, scalar). Also, construct bias has
more serious consequences and is more difficult to remedy than method and
item bias. For instance, selecting a preexisting instrument for transla-tion
and use on a different language group, the researcher runs the risk of
incomplete coverage of the construct in the target culture (i.e., construct bias
limiting construct equivalence). Method bias can be minimized, for
example, by using standardized administration (administering under simi-lar
conditions using same instructions) and by using covariates, whereas
thorough translation procedures may limit item bias. Furthermore, higher
levels of equivalence are less robust against bias. Scalar equivalence (a
needed condition for comparison of average scores between groups) is, for
instance, affected by all types of bias and is more susceptible to bias than
measurement-unit equivalence or construct equivalence, where comparative

statements are not a focus (cf. van de Vijver, 1998). Thus, if one wants to
infer if Culture A shows more or less magnitude of a characteristic (e.g.,
willingness to seek counseling services) than Culture B, one has to empir-
ically demonstrate the measure’s lack of bias and scalar equivalence.
Not all instruments are equally vulnerable to bias. In fact, more struc-
tured tests administered under standardized conditions are less susceptible to
bias than open-ended questions. Similarly, the less the “cultural distance”
(Triandis, 1994, 2000) between groups being compared, the less room there
is for bias. Cultural distance can, for instance, be discerned based on the
Human Development Index (HDI; United Nations, 2005) published yearly
by the United Nations Development Programme to assess well-being and
child welfare (human development). Using the HDI as a measure of cultural
distance, it can be seen that the United States (ranked 10) and Ireland
(ranked 8) are more similar in terms of human development than the United
States and Niger (ranked 177). Therefore, it can be expected that greater bias
affects cross-cultural comparisons between the United States and Niger than
between the United States and Ireland.
MEASUREMENT APPROACHES
Selection of Measurement Devices

A prerequisite to conducting a cross-cultural study is to make sure what
is being studied exists and is functionally equivalent across cultures (Berry,
1969; Lonner, 1985). Once this has been determined, the next step is decid-
ing how the construct should be assessed. This decision should be based on
the type of bias expected. If there is a concern with construct bias, the con-
struct is not functionally equivalent, and serious method bias is expected, the
researcher may need to rely on emic approaches (indigenous or cultural),
develop measures meaningful to the culture, and use culture-sensitive
methodologies. Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) called this strategy the
assembly approach. Emic techniques (i.e., assembly) are often needed if the
cultures of interest are very different (Triandis, 1994, 2000). In this
approach, though, direct comparisons between cultures can be challenging,
as the two or more measures of the construct may not be equivalent at the
measurement level.
If, in contrast, the cultures are relatively similar and the concept is func-
tionally equivalent across cultures, the researcher may opt to translate and/or
adapt preexisting instruments and methodologies to discern cultural similar-
ities and differences across cultural groups. Van de Vijver and Leung (1997)
listed two common strategies employed when using preexisting measures for
multilingual groups. First is the applied approach, where an instrument goes
through a literal translation of items. Item content is not changed to a new
cultural context, and the linguistic and psychological appropriateness of the
items are assumed. It is also assumed there is no need to change the
instrument to avoid bias. According to van de Vijver (2001), this is the most
common technique in cross-cultural research on multilingual groups. The
second strategy is adaptation, where some items may be literally translated,
while others require modification of wording and content to enhance the
appropriateness to a new cultural context (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
This technique is chosen if there is concern with construct bias.
Of the three approaches just mentioned (assembly, application, and
adaptation), the application strategy is the easiest and least cumbersome in
terms of money, time, and effort. This technique may also offer high levels
of equivalence (measurement-unit and scalar equivalence), and it can make
the comparison to results of other studies using the same instrument possi-
ble. This approach may not be useful, however, when the characteristic
behaviors or attitudes (e.g., obedience and being a good daughter or son)
associated with the construct (e.g., filial piety) differ across cultures (lack of
construct equivalence and high construct bias) (e.g., Ho, 1996). In such
instances, the assembly or adaptation strategy may be needed. With the
assembly approach (emic), researchers may focus on the construct validity
of the instrument (e.g., factor analysis, divergent and convergent validity),
not on direct cross-cultural comparisons. When adaptation of an instrument
is needed in which some items are literally translated, whereas others are
changed or added, cross-cultural comparisons may be challenging, as direct
comparisons of total scores may not be feasible because all items are not
identical. Only scores on identical items can be compared using mean score
comparisons (Hambleton, 2001). The application technique (etic) to trans-
lation most easily allows for a direct comparison of test scores using t tests
or ANOVA because of potential scalar equivalence. For such comparisons
to be valid, however, an absence of bias needs to be demonstrated.
The applied approach and to some degree the adaptation strategy focus
on capturing the etics, or the qualities of concepts common across cultures.
Yet cultural researchers have criticized it. Berry (1989), for instance, labeled
this practice “imposed etics,” claiming that by using the etic approach,
researchers fail to capture the culturally specific aspects of a construct and
may erroneously assume the construct exists and functions similarly across
cultures (cf. Adamopolous & Lonner, 2001). The advantage of the etic over
the emic strategy, however, is that the etic technique provides the ability to
make cross-cultural comparisons, whereas in the emic approach, cross-
cultural comparison is more difficult and not as direct.

Nevertheless, the etic strategy may be limited when trying to understand

a specific culture. There is, for instance, no guarantee a translated measure
developed to assess a concept in one culture will assess the same construct
equally well in another culture. It is highly likely that some aspects of the
concept may be lost or not captured by the scale. There might be construct
bias and lack of construct equivalence. To counteract this shortcoming, sev-
eral methods have been proposed. Brislin and colleagues (Brislin, 1976,
1983; Brislin et al., 1973) suggested a combined etic-emic strategy. In this
approach, researchers begin with an existing tool developed in one culture
that is translated for use in a target culture (potentially etic items). Next,
additional items are included in the translated scale, which are unique to the
target culture (emic). The additional items may be developed by persons
knowledgeable about the culture and/or drawn from relevant literature.
These culture-specific items must be highly correlated with the original
items in the target instrument but unrelated to culture-specific items gener-
ated from another culture (Brislin, 1976, 1983; Brislin et al., 1973). Adding
emic items will provide the researcher with a greater in-depth understand-
ing of a construct in a given culture. Assessing equivalence between the lan-
guage versions of the instrument would be based only on the shared (etic)
items (Hambleton, 2001).
Similarly, Triandis (1972, 1975, 1976) suggested that researchers start
with an etic concept (thought to exist in all cultures under study) and then
develop emic items based on each culture for the etic concept. Thus, all
instrument development is carried out within each culture included in the
study (i.e., assembly). Triandis argued that cross-cultural comparison could
still be made using these versions of the measure (one in each culture)
because the emic items would be written to measure an etic concept. SEM
could, for instance, be used for this purpose (see Betz, 2005; Weston &
Gore, 2006).
Finally, a “convergence approach” can be applied (e.g., van de Vijver,
1998). Relying on this technique, researchers may assemble a scale mea-
suring an etic concept in each culture or use preexisting culture-specific
tools translated into each language. Then all measures are given to each cul-
tural group. Comparisons can be made between shared items (given enough
items are shared), whereas nonshared items provide culture-specific under-
standing of the construct. When this method is used, the appropriateness of
items in all scales needs to be determined before administration.
Determining Equivalence of Translated Instruments

Several statistical methods are available to determine equivalence
between translated and original versions of scales. Reporting Cronbach’s
alpha
reliability, item-total scale correlations, and item means and variations pro-
vides initial information about instruments’ psychometric properties. A sta-
tistical comparison between two independent reliability coefficients can be
performed (cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). If the coefficients are signifi-
cantly different from each other, the source of the difference should be
examined. This may indicate item or construct bias. Additionally, item-total
scale correlations may indicate construct bias and nonequivalence, and
method bias (e.g., administration differences, differential social desirability,
differential familiarity with instrumentation). Finally, item score distribution
may suggest biased items and, therefore, information about equivalence. For
instance, an indicator (e.g., item or scale) showing variation in one cultural
group but not the other may represent an emic concept (Johnson, 1998).
Therefore, comparing these statistics across different language versions of
an instrument will offer preliminary data about the instruments’ equivalence
(e.g., construct, measurement unit, and scalar; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997;
conceptual and measurement; Lonner, 1985).
Construct (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), conceptual, and measurement
equivalence (Lonner, 1985) can also be assessed at the scale level. Here,
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, multidimensional scaling
techniques, and cluster analysis can be used (e.g., van de Vijver & Leung,
1997). These techniques provide information about whether the construct is
structurally similar across cultures and if the same meaning is attached to the
construct. For instance, in confirmatory factor analysis, hypotheses about the
factor structure of a measure, such as the number of factors, load-ings of
variables on factors, and correlations among factors, can be tested.
Numerous fit indices can be used to evaluate the fit of the model to the data.
Scalar or full score equivalence is more difficult to establish than con-
struct and measurement-unit equivalence, and various biases may threaten
this level of equivalence. Item bias, for instance, influences scalar
equivalence. Item bias can be ascertained by studying the distribution of
item scores for all cultural groups (cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Item
response theory (IRT), in which differential item functioning (DIF) is
examined, may be used for this purpose. In IRT, it is assumed item
responses are related to an underlying or latent trait using a logistic curve
known as item characteristic curve (ICC). The ICCs for each selected
parameter (e.g., item difficulty or popularity) are compared for every item in
each cultural group using chi-square statistics. Items differing between
cultural groups are eliminated before cross-cultural comparisons are made
(e.g., Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Item bias can also be examined by using ANOVA. The item score is treated
as the dependent vari-able, and the cultural group (e.g., two levels) and score
levels (levels depen-dent on number of scale items and number of
participants scoring at each
level) are the independent variables. Main effects for culture and the inter-
action between culture and score level are then examined. Significant effects
indicate biased items (cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Logistic regression
can also be used for this purpose using the same type of independent and
dependent variables. Additionally, multiple-group SEM invariance analy-ses
(MCFA) and multiple group mean and covariance structures analysis
(MACS) also provide information about biased items or indicators (e.g.,
Byrne, 2004; Cheung & Rensvold, 2000; Little, 1997, 2000), with the
MACS method also providing information about mean differences between
groups on latent constructs (e.g., Ployhart & Oswald, 2004).
Finally, factors contributing to method bias can be assessed and statisti-
cally held constant when measuring constructs across cultures, given that
valid measures are available. A measure of social desirability may, for
instance, be used to partially control for method bias. Also, gross national
product per capita may be used to control for method bias, as it has been
found to correlate with social desirability (e.g., Van Hemert, van de Vijver,
Poortinga, & Georgas, 2002) and acquiescence (Johnson et al., 2005).
Furthermore, personal experience variables potentially influencing the con-
struct under study differentially across cultures may serve as covariates.
Translation Methodology
Employing a proper translation methodology is extremely important to
increase equivalence between multilingual versions of an instrument and the
measures’ cross-cultural validity. About a decade ago, van de Vijver and
Hambleton (1996) published practical guidelines for translating psycholog-
ical tests that were based on standards set forth in 1993 by the International
Test Commission (ITC). The guidelines covered best practices in regard to
context, development, administration, and the interpretation of psychologi-
cal instruments (cf. Hambleton & de Jong, 2003; van de Vijver, 2001; van
de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). The context
guidelines emphasized the importance of minimizing construct, method, and
item bias and the need to assess, instead of assume, construct similarity
across cultural groups before embarking on instrument translation. The
development guidelines referred to the translation process itself, while the
administration guidelines suggested ways to minimize method bias. Finally,
the interpretation guidelines recommended caution when explaining score
differences unless alternative hypotheses had been ruled out and equivalence
between original and translated measures had been ensured (van de Vijver &
Hambleton, 1996). Counseling psychologists should review these guidelines
when designing cross-cultural research projects and prior to translating and
adapting psychological instruments for such research.

Prior to the development of the ITC standards, Brislin et al. (1973) and
Brislin (1986) had written extensively about translation procedures. The
following paragraphs outline the common translation methods that Brislin et
al. summarized with connotations to the ITC guidelines (e.g., Hambleton &
de Jong, 2003; van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996). Additional methods to
enhance equivalence of translated scales are also mentioned.
Translation. When translating an instrument, bilingual persons who

speak both the original and the target language should be employed. Either a
single person or a committee of translators can be used (Brislin et al., 1973).
In contrast to employing only a single person for the translation, the
committee approach emphasizes two or more persons performing the trans-
lation independently. Then, the translations are compared, sometimes with
another person, until an agreement is reached on an optimal translation. The
advantage of the committee approach recommended in the ITC guidelines
(van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996) over a single person is the possible
reduction in bias and misconceptions of a single person. In addition to being
knowledgeable about the target language of the translation, test trans-lators
need to be familiar with the target culture, the construct being assessed, and
the principles of assessment (Hambleton & de Jong, 2003; van de Vijver &
Hambleton, 1996). Being knowledgeable about such topics minimizes item
biases (e.g., in an achievement test, an item in one culture may give away
more information than the same item in another cul-ture) that may result
from literal translations.
Back translation. In this procedure, the translated or target version of the

measure is independently translated back to the original language by
different person(s) than the one(s) performing the translation to the target
language. If more than one person is involved in the back translation,
together they decide on the best back-translated version of the scale that is
compared to the original same-language version for linguistic equivalence.
Back translation does not only provide the researcher with some control over
the end result of the translated instrument in cases where he or she does not
know the target language (e.g., Brislin et al., 1973; Werner & Campbell,
1970), it also allows for further refinement of the translated version to
ensure equivalence of the measures. If the two same-language versions of
the scale do not seem identical (i.e., the original and the back-translated
versions), the researcher in cooperation with the translation com-mittee
works on the translations until equivalence is reached. Here, the items
requiring a changed translation may be subject to back translation again.
Oftentimes in this procedure, only the translated version is changed to be
equivalent to the original-language version that remains unchanged.

At other times, the original language version of the scale is also changed to
ensure equivalence, a process known as decentering (Brislin et al., 1973).
Adequate back translation does not guarantee a good translation of a scale,
as this procedure often leads to literal translation at the cost of readability
and naturalness of the translated version. To minimize this, a team of back
translators with a combined expertise in psychology and linguistics may be
used (van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996). It is also important to note that in
addition to the test items, test instructions need to go through a thorough
translation/back-translation process.
Decentering. This method was first introduced by Werner and Campbell

(1970) and refers to a translation/back-translation process in which both the
source (original instrument’s language) and the target language versions are
considered equally important and both are open to modification.
Decentering may need to take place if words in the original language have
no equivalence in the target language. If the aim is collecting data in both
the original and the target culture, items in the original instrument are
changed to ensure maximum equivalence (cf. Brislin, 1970, on the
translation of Marlowe-Crowne’s [Crowne & Marlowe, 1960] Social
Desirability Scale). Thus, the back-translated version of the original
instrument is used for data collection instead of the original version, as it is
considered most likely to be equivalent to the translated version (Brislin,
1986). When this outcome is selected and when researchers worry that
changes in the original lan-guage may lead to a lack of comparability with
previous studies using the original instrument, Brislin (1986) suggested
collecting data using both the “decentered” and the original version of the
instrument on a sample speaking the original language. The participants may
see half of the original items and half of the revised items in a
counterbalanced order. Statistical analysis can indicate whether different
conclusions should be made based on responses to the original versus the
revised items (see Brislin, 1970).
Pretests. Following translation and back translation of an instrument and,

therefore, judgmental evidence about the equivalence of the original and
translated versions of the instrument, several pretest measures can be used to
evaluate the equivalence of the instruments in regard to the mean-ing
conveyed by the items. One approach is to administer the original and the
translated versions of the instrument to bilingual persons (Brislin et al.,
1973; van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996). Following the administration of
the instruments, item responses can be compared using statistical methods
(e.g., t test). If item differences are discovered between versions of the
instrument, the translations are reviewed and changed accordingly.
Sometimes bilingual individuals are used in lieu of performing back

translations (Brislin et al., 1973). In this case, the translated version and
original versions of the instrument are administered to bilingual persons.
The bilingual persons may be randomly assigned to two groups that receive
half of the questions in the original language and the other half in the target
language. The translated items resulting in responses different from
responses elicited by the same original items are then refined until the
responses between the original and the translated items are comparable.
Items not yielding com-parable responses despite revisions are discarded. If
items yield comparable results, the two versions of the instrument are
considered equivalent. Additionally, a small group of bilingual individuals
can be employed to rate each item from the original and translated versions
of the instrument on a predetermined scale in regard to the similarity of
meaning conveyed by the item. Problematic items are then refined until
deemed satisfactory (e.g., Hambleton, 2001).
A small sample of participants (e.g., N = 10) can also be employed to
pretest a translated measure that has gone through the translation/back-
translation iteration. Here, participants are instructed to provide verbal or
written feed-back about each item of the scale. For example, Brislin et al.
(1973) noted two methods: random probe and rating of items. In the random
probe method, the researcher randomly selects items from a scale and asks
probing questions about an item, such as “What do you mean?” Persons’
responses to the probes are then examined. Responses considered “bizarre”
or unfitting an item are scrutinized, and the translation of the item is
changed. This method provides insight into how well the meaning of the
original items has fared in the translation. In the rating method, respondents
are asked to rate their perceptions about item clarity and appropriateness on
a predetermined scale. Items that are unclear or not fitting based on these
ratings are reworded. Finally, a focus group approach can be used (e.g.,
Ægisdóttir, Gerstein, & Gridley, 2000) where a small group of participants
responds to the translated version and then discusses with the researcher(s)
the meaning the participants associated with the items. Participants also
share their perception about the clarity and cultural appropriateness of the
items. Item wording is then changed based on responses from the focus
group members.
Statistical Assessment of the Translated Measure

In addition to pretesting a translated scale and judgmental evidence about
a scale’s equivalence, researchers need to provide further evidence of the
measure’s equivalence to the original instrument. As stated earlier, item
analyses and Cronbach’s alpha suggest equivalence and lack of bias.
Furthermore, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the measure’s
factor structure can contribute information about construct equivalence.
Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis can be used to explore
construct
equivalence as well. These techniques indicate equivalence on an instru-

ment level, more specifically, about the similarities and differences of the
hypothesized construct underlying the instrument for the different language
versions. Similar to Brislin et al.’s (1973) suggestions mentioned earlier,
Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004) proposed a method they termed “the dual-
language split half” (DLSH) to evaluate equivalence. In this procedure,
alternate forms of a translated measure, each composed of one half of items
in the original language and one half of items in the target language, are
administered to bilingual persons in a counterbalanced order of languages.
Equivalence between the two language versions of the instruments is deter-
mined by lack of significant differences between mean scores on the origi-
nal and translated version of the measures, by split-half correlations
between clusters of items on the original and the target language, and by the
internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability of the dual lan-guage
form of the measures. These coefficients are compared to results from the
original-language version of the instrument. Also inherent in this approach is
collection of evidence for convergent validity for each language version.
Finally, and as mentioned earlier, to provide further evidence of the
measure’s equivalence to the original measure analyses at the item level
(item bias analysis; van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996), procedures such as
ANOVA and IRT to examine DIF can be applied to determine scalar equiv-
alence (cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). MCFA and MACS invariance
analyses can be employed for this purpose as well.
CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION METHODS

IN SELECT COUNSELING JOURNALS
Another purpose of this article is to examine, analyze, and evaluate

translation practices employed in five prominent counseling journals thought
to publish a greater number of articles on international topics than other
counseling periodicals. This purpose was pursued to determine whether
counseling researchers have, in fact, followed the translation pro-cedures
suggested by Brislin (1986) and Brislin et al. (1973) and in the ITC
guidelines (e.g., van de Vijver and Hambleton, 1996). We also examined the
methods used to control for bias and increase equivalence. While this was
not the primary purpose of this article, results of our investigation might
help illustrate counseling researchers’ use of preferred translation principles
mentioned in the cross-cultural literature. It was also assumed results
obtained from this type of investigation could help identify further
recommendations to assist counseling researchers when conducting cross-
cultural studies and when reporting results of such projects in the schol-arly
literature.

METHOD
Sample
The sample consisted of published studies employing translated instru-
ments in their data collection. To be included in this project, an integral part
of the study’s methodology had to be a translation of one or more entire
instrument or some subset of items from an instrument. Furthermore, the
target instrument could not have been translated or evaluated the same way
in earlier studies. Additionally, the included studies had to either compare
responses from persons from more than one culture (nationality) or inves-
tigate a psychological concept using a non-U.S. or non-English-speaking
sample of participants. Studies for this investigation were sampled from five
counseling journals (Journal of Counseling Psychology [JCP], Journal of
Counseling and Development [JCD], Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development [JMCD], Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development [MECD], and The Counseling Psychologist [TCP]) thought to
publish articles relevant to non-English-speaking cultures, eth-nic groups,
and/or countries. To assess for more recent trends in the litera-ture, only
articles published between the years 2000 and 2005 were included in our
sample. We assumed recent studies (i.e., studies published since 2000)
would provide a good representation of current translation and verification
practices employed by counseling researchers. From 2000 to 2005, a total of
615 empirical articles were published in the targeted jour-nals. Of these
articles, 15 included translation as a part of their methodol-ogy. Therefore,
2.4% of the empirical articles published in these five counseling journals
incorporated a translation process.
Procedure
The 15 identified studies were coded by (a) publication source (e.g.,
TCP), (b) year of publication (e.g., 2001), (c) construct investigated and
name of scale translated, (d) translation methodology used (single person,
committee, bilinguals), (e) whether the translated version of the scale was
pilot tested (yes or no) before main data collection, (f) number of partici-
pants used for pilot testing, (g) psychometric properties reported and statis-
tics used to evaluate the translated measure’s equivalence to the original
scale, and (h) number of participants from which the psychometric data were
gathered. Two of the current authors coded information from the arti-cles
independently. If disagreements arose in the coding (e.g., relevant
psychometrics for equivalence evaluation), these were resolved through
consensus agreement between the coders.
RESULTS
Table 1 lists results found for each of the 15 studies. Three of the
included studies used a structured or semistructured interview-test protocol.
In 3 studies, of which one included a semistructured test protocol, an
English-language instrument was developed and then translated to another
language. Furthermore, in 9 studies, one or more preexisting measures (the
entire instrument or subset of items) were translated into a language other
than English. In the 15 studies, a range of constructs was examined, includ-
ing persons’ counseling orientations (e.g., help-seeking attitudes, counsel-
ing expectations), adjustment (e.g., acculturation), and maladjustment (e.g.,
psychological stress). A diversity of cultural groups was represented in the
15 studies as well (see Table 1).
Evaluation of Included Studies

Two main criteria were used to evaluate these 15 studies: (a) the trans-
lation methodology employed (single person, committee, back translation,
pretest), which provides judgmental evidence about the equivalence of the
translated measure to the original measure; and (b) whether statistical
methods were used to verify equivalence of the translated measure to its
original-language version. Because the studies ranged in terms of their pur-
pose and the approaches taken when investigating multicultural groups, and
also because these strategies were linked with different measurement
opportunities of equivalence and bias, we divided these 15 studies into three
categories: target-language, cross-cultural, and equivalence studies. The
target-language studies included projects in which only translated ver-sions
of measures were investigated. These studies employed either cross-cultural
(etic) methodologies or a combination of cultural and cross-cultural
methodologies (emic-etic). For these studies, there was no direct comparison
made between an original and a translated version of the protocol. The
second category of studies used a cross-cultural approach, as they compared
two or more groups on a certain construct. Each of these groups received the
original and translated versions of a measure. Finally, the third category of
studies was specifically designed to examine equiva-lence between two
language versions of an instrument. These studies we termed “equivalence
studies.”
We identified studies that employed sound versus weak translation
method-ologies. This task turned out to be difficult, however, because of the
scarcity of information reported about the translation processes used.
Sometimes, the translation procedure was described in only a couple of
sentences. In other instances, the translation methodology was discussed in
more detail
(text continues on p. 210)
TABLE 1: Studies Involving Translation of Instruments
Assigned
Number, Approach
Citation, Type of
Back Instrument to
and Journal Construct
Translation Sample
Pretest Name
Original Translation
Target Translation
1. Shin, Berkson, & Psychological Immigrants from Six items from theanalysis English to Korean Committee Yes
No N/A ATSPPH: Factor
Crittenden (2000); help-seeking Korea Attitudes Toward AAS: Cronbach's alpha
JMCD attitudes; Seeking Professional (N=110 Korean immigrants
traditional values Psychological Help in U.S.)
(ATSPPH);
A
c
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
S
c
a
l
e
,
(
A
A
S
)
p
r
i
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
;
V
i
g
n
e
t
t
e
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
2. Engels, Finkenauer, Parental attachment; Dutch adolescents Parent and Peer English to Dutch Committee Yes
No N/A Cronbach's alpha (N=412
Meeus, & Dekovic Relational
(researchers) Attachment
Dutch (IPPA); (researchers);
(2001); JCP competence; Perceived Competence unclear what adolescents)
Self-esteem; Scale for Children; instruments were
Depression Self-Esteem Scale; translated in study
Depressive Mood List
3. Chung & Bemak Anxiety;
Pilot Southeastern
N/A Asian Health Opinion
Exploratory Survey
factory analysis English to Committee Yes
(2002); JCD depression; refugees (interview) Vietnamese, interviews for Vietnamese
(N=867),
psychosocial Khmer, Laotian Cambodian (N=590), and
dysfunction
symptoms
4. Kasturirangan & Culture Latino
N/A women A semiprofessor
structuredof foreign English to Spanish. Not No
Pilot interview; no Latina
Nutt-Williams Domestic
English violence
version interview served
language protocolas an auditor No discussion of reported comparison
(2003); JMCD developed by thetranslation translation method between of protocol
to ensure proper
administered to researchers: Two
interviews in English,
(n=3) Latina
women seven in Spanish
rior to data
ollection
5. Asner-Self & Attributional
No style Immigrants
N/A from The Attributional
Cronbach's alpha, Style
principle English to Committee Yes
Schreiber (2004); Central America Questionnaire (ASQ) Spanish components analysis (N=89
MECD
mmigrants in U.S.)
6. Torres & Rollock Acculturation-related Immigrants
Not reportedfrom Cultural Adjustment English to Spanish Committee Yes
No for Cronbach's alpha (N=86
(2004); MECD challenges Central & South Difficulties Checklist the 10% of the Hispanic immigrants). 90%
America (CADC) sample that of the sample responded to
esponded to
his version
r
(
TABLE 1: (continued)
Assigned
Number, Approach
Citation, Type of
Back Instrument to
and Journal Construct Sample Name Translation Translation
Translation Pretest Original Target
7. Oh & Neville Korean rapegroup

myth Korean college Illinois1:Rape MythcomponentsEnglish to Korean Single person Yes
Yes; Focus N/A Study Principle
(2004); TCP acceptance students Acceptance Scale (n=4 South analysis followed by
exploratory factor analysis (IRMAS) (26 items
(N=348 South Korean from IRMAS were
translated and includ-
college students). Study 2:
confirmatory Factor ed in the preliminary
version of the Korean
analysis, factorial
invariance procedure, Rape Myth
Acceptance Scale;
Cronbach's alpha, &
KRMAS)
MANOVA to establish
tems were in
orean
S
r
K
8. Asner-Self & Depression,
Not reportedanxiety, Immigrants
Not reportedfrom Briefreported.
Not Symptom No information English to Spanish Not reported Yes
Marotta (2005); phobic anxiety; Central America Inventory (BSI); about number of
JCD Erikson's eight Measures of participants responding to
psychosocial stages Psychosocial English or Spanish versions
Development (MPD)
robed about the research
xperience.
9. Wei & Heppner Clients'
No perceptions Counselor-client
N/A Counselor
Cronbach'sRating
alpha, English to Mandarin Single person Yes
(2005); TCP of counselor credi- dyads in Taiwan Form-short Version intercorrelations among
bility; working (CRF-S); The CRF subscales (construct
alliance Working Alliance validity) (N=31 counselor/
Inventory-short
Version (WAI-S)
Cross-cultural studies
10. Marino, Stuart, & Acculturation Anglo-Celtic Developed
Cronbach's aalpha (N=187 English to Vietnamese Committee Yes
Yes (n = 10) Cronbach's alpha,
Minas (2000); Australians & questionnaire (in Vietnamese (N=196 Vietnamese Australians).
MECD
participants Vietnamese English) measuring version Anglo-Celtic Vietnamese
immigrants to behavioral and Australians) responded to either an English
Australia psychological or a Vietnamese version of
acculturation, and
socioeconomic and
demographic
influences on
acculturation
11. Ægisdóttir & Counseling Icelandic &alpha
U.S. Expectationsalpha
About
(N = 261 English to Icelandic Committee Yes
Focus Group (n = Cronbach's Cronbach's
Gerstein (2000); expectations; college students Counseling 8) Icelandic (N = 225 U.S. Icelandic college students).
JCD (prior Holland's typology Questionnaire (EAC-B); version college Covariate
analysis
counseling experience) used Self-Directed Search
(SDS)
12. Poasa, Causal attributions U.S., American Questionnaire of English to Samoan Single person Yes
English version of A team of English- A team of Samoan-speaking
Mallinckrodt, & Somoan, & Attribution and QAC pilot speaking persons (n = 3)
Suzuki (2000); Western Samoan Culture (QAC; tested and persons (n = 4) independently coded the
TCP college students vignettes with open- respondents independently Samoan language
responses
coded the ended response probes
developed in English)
English-
valuate
about if themes/codes were
quivalence
translated from Samoan to
n = 16)
English
iews (N = 23)
13. Tang (2002); Career choice
No Chinese,
None reported for A questionnaire
None reported for Chinese English to Chinese Single person Yes
JMCD Chinese-American,
(N = 120) college students developed in English (researcher) Caucasian
& Caucasian in the study to American (N =
American college measure influences on 124) and Asian
students career choice American
131) college
tudents
Equivalence studies
14. Chang & Wellness
Yes (n = 3): Immigrants from
None reported for The
NoneWellness
reportedEvaluation
for a larger English to Korean Single translator No
Myers (2003); Korea of Lifestyle (WEL) whose
Bilingual exam- a larger sample sampletranslations
(N not reported)
MECD were edited
inees by first
took both (N not
author.
reported)
Discrepancies
resolved between
translator and
editor upon mutual
in
agreement
etween
nglish and
orean version
15. Mallinckrodt & Adult attachment
No Int'l students from
Split-half The Experiences
Used bilinguals (nin= 30 English to Chinese Committee Yes
Wang (2004); JCP Taiwan Close Relationships reliability, Taiwanese international
Scale (ECRS)
college students) to evaluate
lpha (N = 399
.S. college
tudents)
v
r
c
(e.g., number and qualifications of translators and back translators), while in

fewer instances, examples were provided about acceptable and unacceptable
item translations.
Despite these difficulties, and based on available information, we con-
trasted relatively sound and weak translation procedures. Translation
methods we considered weak did not incorporate any mechanism to evaluate
the trans-lation, including either judgmental (e.g., back translation, use of
bilinguals, pretest) and/or quantitative (statistical evidence of equivalence)
procedures. Instead, such a protocol was translated to one or more languages
without any apparent evaluation about its equivalence to the original
language version. Methodologically sound studies incorporated both
judgmental and quantita-tive methods to assess the validity of the
translation. Given these criteria to evaluate the methodological rigor of the
translation process employed, we now present the analyses of the 15
identified studies in the literature.
Target-language studies. Eight of the 15 studies administered and exam-

ined responses from a translated measure without direct comparison to a
group responding to an original-language version of the measure (see Table
1). In most of these studies, persons from one cultural group participated.
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed. These studies
relied on preexisting instruments, select items from preexisting instru-ments,
or interview protocols translated into a new language. We also included in
this category studies in which a protocol was developed in English and
translated into another language.
In two studies (4 and 8), few procedures were reported to evaluate the
translation and verify the different language form of the measures used (see
Table 1). In these studies, two language versions of a scale were collapsed
into one set of responses without evaluating their equivalence. A stronger
design for these studies would ensure judgmental equivalence between the
two language versions of the scales. This could have been accomplished by
using a committee of translators and independent back translators. A
stronger design would have also resulted from incorporating a decentering
process when developing the adapted measures and, if appropriate, by sta-
tistically assessing equivalence. Thus, we considered these studies weak in
terms of their methodological rigor.
Sound translation methods incorporate several mechanisms to evaluate a
translated version of a protocol. They involve, for instance, a committee
approach to translation/back translation, a pretest of the scale, and an eval-
uation of the instrument’s psychometric properties relative to the original
version. Four studies reported information somewhat consistent with our
criteria for sound methodological procedures (3, 5, 7, and 9). The authors,
with varying degree of detail, reported using either a single person or a
committee approach to translation, they relied on back translation, and they

employed one or more independent experts to evaluate the equivalence of
the language forms. They also reported making subsequent changes to the
translated version of the instruments they were using. Additionally, in some
of these studies, a pretest of the translated protocol was performed, and in all
of these projects, the investigators discussed the statistical tests of the
measures’ psychometric properties (see Table 1).
The remaining three studies in this category (1, 2, and 6) contained
translation methods of moderate quality, in that their quality ranged in
between those we considered using relatively weak and strong translation
procedures. In fact, the translation process was not fully described.
Furthermore, in one instance, the same person performed the translation and
the back translation (2), and in another (6), no assessment of equiva-lence
was reported on the two language versions of the scale used before
responses were collapsed into one data set. Also, in one study (1), translated
items from an existing scale were selected a priori without any quantitative
or qualitative (e.g., pretest) assurance these items fit the cultural group to
which they were administered. In none of these three studies were the mea-
sures pretested before collecting data for the main study. Finally, insufficient
information was reported about the translated instruments’ psychometric
properties to evaluate the validity of the measures for the targeted cultural
groups. The internal validity of these studies could have been greatly
improved had the researchers included some of these procedures in the
translation and verification process.
Cross-cultural studies. Four of the 15 studies directly compared two or

more cultural groups. In 3 of these studies, an instrument was developed in
English and then translated into another language, whereas in 1 study, a
preexisting instrument was translated to another language (see Table 1). In
all 4 studies, comparisons were made between language groups relying on
two language versions of the same instrument.
None of these four studies employed a particularly weak translation
methodology. Yet three of the four studies (11, 12, and 13) used relatively
rigorous methods. In these three studies, the scales were pretested follow-ing
the translation/back-translation process, providing judgmental evidence of
equivalence. Additionally, in the two quantitative studies (10 and 11), the
researchers compared Cronbach’s alphas between language versions.
Finally, in one study (11), equivalence was further determined by employ-
ing covariate analysis to control for method bias (different experiences of
participants across cultures) in support of scalar equivalence. None of these
approaches to examine and ensure equivalence was reported in the Tang
(2002) study. As a result, we concluded that this study used the least valid

approach. It is noteworthy that all four studies in this category failed to

assess the factor structure of the different language versions of the mea-
sures, and as such, they did not provide additional support for construct
equivalence. Similarly, none of these studies assessed item bias or per-
formed any detailed analyses to verify scalar equivalence. Employing these
additional analyses would have greatly enhanced the validity of the reported
cross-cultural comparisons in these four studies.
Equivalence studies. Two of the 15 studies were treated as separate cases,

as they were specifically designed to demonstrate and evaluate equivalence
between two language versions of a scale (see Table 1). Therefore, we did
not evaluate these the same way as the other 13 studies. Instead, they are
examples of how to enhance cross-cultural validity of translated and adapted
scales. We concluded that Mallinckrodt and Wang’s (2004) approach to
determine construct equivalence between language versions of a measure
was significantly more rigorous than the one presented by Chang and Myers
(2003).
As can be seen from Table 1, Chang and Myers (2003) employed three
bilingual persons in lieu of back translation. In their approach, bilingual
persons’ average scale scores to both versions of a scale were compared.
Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004), in contrast, used both back translation and
bilingual individuals to demonstrate and ensure equivalence. Their method
subsumed the method employed by Chang and Myers. Following a back
translation of an instrument, Mallinckrodt and Wang used a quantitative
methodology, the DLSH, to assess equivalence between two language
versions of a scale (see discussion earlier). In brief, with this approach,
responses from bilingual individuals receiving half of the items in each
language were compared to a criterion sample of persons responding to the
original version of the scale. By comparing average scale scores, reliability
coefficients, and construct validity correlations, the researchers were able to
examine the equivalence (construct and to some degree scalar equivalence)
between the two language versions of the instrument.
Interpretation of Results
The current results are consistent with Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004),
who discovered in their review of articles published in two counseling jour-
nals (JCP and TCP) that few studies in counseling psychology have inves-
tigated multilingual or international groups or employed translation
methods. Additionally, consistent with these investigators, we found in
many instances, counseling researchers used inadequate procedures to verify
equivalence between language versions of an instrument. For example, our
analyses
indicated just more than half of the 15 studies employed a committee of

translators. A committee is highly recommended in the ITC guidelines (van
de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996).
We also discovered in less than half of the 15 studies that the measure-
ment devices were pretested, and in slightly more than half of the studies,
the researchers used quantitative methods to further demonstrate equiva-
lence. Furthermore, only 1 study systematically controlled for method bias,
while none of the 15 studies assessed for item bias. All these procedures are
recommended in the ITC guidelines. On a positive note, however, all but 2
studies used a back-translation procedure to enhance equivalence. Taken
together, all of these results are disquieting and lead us to call for employing
more rigorous research designs when studying culture, when using and
evaluating translated instruments, and when performing cross-cultural
comparisons.
Additionally, we found, in many cases, limited attention was placed on
discussing translation methods. Hambleton (2001) also observed this trend.
Not knowing the reason for this lack of effort, we speculate about why
methods of translation were not described in more detail. One reason could
be the lack of importance placed on this methodological feature of a
research design. Another may relate to an author’s desire to comply with
page limitations in journals. A third reason could be a researcher’s failure to
recognize the importance of reporting the details about methods of trans-
lation. Finally, it is conceivable that researchers assume others are aware of
common methods of translation and thus do not discuss the methods they
use in much detail. Whatever the reasons, consistent with the ITC guide-
lines, we strongly suggest investigators provide detailed information about
the methods they employ when translating and validating instruments used
in research. This is especially important, as an inappropriate translation of a
measure can lead to a serious threat to a study’s internal validity, may con-
tribute to bias, and in international comparisons may limit the level of
equivalence between multilingual versions of a measure. As a threat to
internal validity, a poorly translated instrument may act as a strong rival
hypothesis for obtained results.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Translation Practices
Several steps are essential for a valid translation. Based on our and
Brislin and colleagues’ (Brislin, 1986; Brislin et al., 1973) review of
common translation methods and the ITC guidelines (e.g., Hambleton, 2001;
van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996), the best translation procedure involves
several steps as

TABLE 2: Summary of Recommended Translation Practices
1. Independent translation from two or more persons familiar with the target lan-
guage and culture and intent of the scale
2. Documentation of comparisons of translations and agreement on the best
translation
3. Rewriting of translated items to fit grammatical structure of target language
4. Independent back translation of translated measure into original language (one or
more persons)
5. Comparison of original and back-translated versions, focusing on appropriate-
ness, clarity, meaning (e.g., use rating scales)
6. Changes to the translated measure based on prior comparison. Changed items go
through the translation/back-translation iteration until satisfactory
7. If concepts or ideas do not translate well, deciding what version of the original
version of a scale should be used for cross-cultural comparison (original, back
translated, or decentered)
8. Pretest of translated instrument on an independent sample (bilinguals or target
language group). Check for clarity, appropriateness, and meaning
9. Assessment of the scale’s reliability and validity, absence of bias, and equiva-
lence to the original-language version of the scale
outlined in Table 2. All but the last step outlined in this table help to
minimize item and construct bias and therefore may increase scalar
equivalence between language versions of a measure (ITC development
guidelines). The last step or recommendation refers to verifying cross-
cultural validity of measures (i.e., absence of bias and equivalence; ITC
interpretation guidelines).
Combining Emic and Etic Approaches

As stated previously, the cross-cultural approach to studying cultural
influences on behavior has limitations. One risk involves assuming universal
laws of behavior and neglecting an in-depth understanding of cultures and
their influences on behavior (e.g., imposed etics). To address this problem,
and in line with suggestions reviewed earlier, we offer several recommenda-
tions for counseling psychologists involved in international research. First,
collaboration between scholars worldwide and across disciplines is
suggested to enhance the quality of cross-cultural studies and the validity of
methods and findings. Such collaboration increases the possibility that
unique cultural variables will be incorporated into the research and potential
threats to internal and external validity will be reduced. Second, to avoid
potential method bias, an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods
should be considered, especially when one type of method may be more
appropriate and relevant to a particular culture. A convergence of results
from both methods

enhances the validity of the findings. Third, when method bias is not
expected but there is a potential for construct bias while the use of a
preexisting mea-sure is considered feasible, researchers should consider
collecting emic items to be included in the instrument when studying an etic
construct (e.g., Brislin, 1976; Oh & Neville, 2004). This approach will
enhance construct equiva-lence by limiting construct bias and will provide
culture-specific information to aid theory development. Fourth, when emic
scales are available in the cul-tures of interest to assess an etic construct and
cross-cultural comparisons are sought, the convergence approach should be
considered. With this approach, all instruments are translated and
administered to each cultural group. Then, items and scales shared across
cultures are used for cross-cultural compar-isons, whereas nonshared items
provide information about the unique aspect of the construct in each culture
(e.g., van de Vijver, 1998). This approach will enhance construct
equivalence, it may deepen the current understanding of cultural and cross-
cultural dimensions of a construct, and it may aid theory development.
Finally, Triandis’s (1972, 1976) suggestion can be considered. With this
procedure, instruments are simultaneously assembled in each cul-ture to
measure the etic construct (e.g., subjective well-being). With this approach,
most or all types of biases can be minimized and equivalence enhanced, as
no predetermined stimuli are used. Factor analyses can be per-formed to
identify etic constructs for cross-cultural comparisons.
CONCLUSION
Given our profession’s increased interest in international topics, there is a

critical need to address methodological challenges unique to this area. We
discussed important challenges such as translation, equivalence, and bias.
Proper translation methods may strengthen the equivalence of constructs
across cultures, as a focus on instrumentation can minimize item bias and
some method bias. Consequently, construct equivalence may be enhanced.
Merely targeting an instrument’s translation, however, is not sufficient.
Other factors to consider when making cross-cultural comparisons are evi-
dence of construct and scalar equivalence and the absence of construct, item,
and method bias.
Implications of well-designed cross-cultural research are many.
Obviously, establishing the cross-cultural generalizability of theories and
counseling approaches across cultures is critical. Without strong cross-
cultural method-ology, erroneous conclusions can be made about similarities
and differences between cultural groups in research and when using
counseling and assess-ment strategies. One should not, for instance,
employ psychodynamic approaches when working with persons from a
cultural group expecting
solution-focused interventions in line with their cultural norms. Similarly,

one should not assume an instrument developed in one culture is appropriate
to use and will yield valid findings about another cultural group.
Counseling psychologists should not only demonstrate cultural aware-
ness, knowledge, and skills to deliver competent mental health services
(American Psychological Association, 2003; Arrendondo et al., 1996), they
should also display this talent in cross-cultural research. Understanding
methods of sound translation and procedures for reducing bias and
enhancing the validity of cross-cultural findings are essential for the
informed scientist-professional. To deliver culturally appropriate and
effective services, coun-seling psychologists must generate and rely on valid
cross-cultural studies. Additionally, we should collaborate with
professionals worldwide. The science and practice of cross-cultural
counseling psychology would be strengthened through this effort. More
important, there would be a greater likelihood that various paradigms of
cross-cultural counseling psychology would be appropriate to the culture,
context, and population being studied and/or served. Ultimately, such
paradigms can contribute to the preservation of different cultures worldwide
and enhance individuals’ quality of life.
REFERENCES
Adamopolous, J., & Lonner, W. J. (2001). Culture and psychology at a crossroad: Historical
perspective and theoretical analysis. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and
psychology (pp. 11-34). New York: Oxford University Press.
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training,
research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist,
58, 377-402.
Arrendondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., et al. (1996).
Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 24, 42-78.
Asner-Self, K. K., & Marotta, S. A. (2005). Developmental indices among Central American
immigrants exposed to way-related trauma: Clinical implications for counselors. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 83, 162-171.
Asner-Self, K. K., & Schreiber, J. B. (2004). A factor analytic study of the attributional style
questionnaire with Central American immigrants. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling & Development, 37, 144-153.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4,
119-128.
Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling
idea. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 721-735.
Betz, N. E. (2005). Enhancing research productivity in counseling psychology: Reactions to
three perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 358-366.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1, 185-216.
Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross cultural studies. International
Journal of Psychology, 11, 213-229.

Brislin, R. W. (1983). Cross cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,

34, 363-400.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner &
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods.
New York: John Wiley.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-
2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2): Manual for administration and scoring
(Rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less
traveled. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 272-300. Chang,
C. Y., & Myers, J. E. (2003). Cultural adaptation of the wellness evaluation of lifestyle:
An assessment challenge. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
35, 239-250.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets
in cross-cultural research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Chung, R. C., & Bemak, F. (2002). Revisiting the California Southeast Asian mental health
needs assessment data: An examination of refugee ethnic and gender differences. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 80, 111-119.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Douce, L. A. (2004). Globalization of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,
32, 142-152.
Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W., & Dekovic, M. (2001). Parental attachment
and adolescents’ emotional adjustment: The associations with social skills and relational
competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 428-439.
Fouad, N. A. (1991). Training counselors to counsel international students. The Counseling
Psychologist, 19, 66-71.
Gerstein, L. H. (2005). Counseling psychologists as international social architects. In
R. L. Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar-Sodowsky, & T. Israel (Eds.),
Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action
(pp. 377-387). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gerstein, L. H., & Ægisdóttir, S. (Eds.). (2005a). Counseling around the world [Special issue].
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 95-184.
Gerstein, L. H., & Ægisdóttir, S. (Eds.). (2005b). Counseling outside of the United States:
Looking in and reaching out [Special section]. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
27, 221-281. Gerstein, L. H., & Ægisdóttir, S. (2005c). A trip around the world: A counseling
travelogue! Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 95-103.
Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI-2: An interpretive manual (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guide-
lines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 164-172.
Hambleton, R. K., & de Jong, J. H. A. L. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educa-
tional and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20, 127-134.
Hambleton. R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applica-
tions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Heppner, P. P. (2006). The benefits and challenges of becoming cross-culturally competent
counseling psychologists: Presidential address. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 147-172.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1996). Filial piety and its psychological consequences. In M. H. Bond (Ed.),
Handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 155-165). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Jahoda, G. (1966). Geometric illusions and environment: A study in Ghana. British Journal of
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and
response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
36, 264-277. Johnson, T. P. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-
national survey research. In ZUMA (Centrum fur Unfragen Methoden und Analysen)-
Nachrichten Spezial Band 3: Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence (pp. 1-40).
Retrieved from http://www.gesis
.org/Publikationen/Zeitschriften/ZUMA_Nachrichten_spezial/zn-sp-3-inhalt.htm
Kasturirangan, A., & Nutt-Williams, E. (2003). Counseling Latina battered women: A qualita-
tive study of the Latina perspective. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
31, 162-178.
Kim, U. (2001). Culture, science, and indigenous psychologies. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The
handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 51-76). New York: Oxford University Press.
Leong, F. T. L., & Blustein, D. L. (2000). Toward a global vision of counseling psychology.
The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 5-9.
Leong, F. T. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2003). A proposal for internationalizing counseling
psychology in the United States: Rationale, recommendations, and challenges. The
Counseling Psychologist, 31, 381-395.
Leung, S. A. (2003). A journey worth traveling: Globalization of counseling psychology. The
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data:
Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76. Little, T. D.
(2000). On the comparability of constructs in cross-cultural research: A critique of
Cheung and Rensvold. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 213-219. Lonner, W. J.
(1985). Issues in testing and assessment in cross-cultural counseling. The Counseling
Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (1986). Field methods in cross-cultural research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Wang, C.-C. (2004). Quantitative methods for verifying semantic equiva-
lence of translated research instruments: A Chinese version of the Experiences in Close
Relationships Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 368-379.
Malpass, R. S., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1986). Strategies for design and analysis. In J. W. Berry &
J. W. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series: Vol. 8. Field meth-
ods in cross-cultural research (pp. 47-83). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
Oh, E., & Neville, H. (2004). Development and validation of the Korean rape myth acceptance
scale. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 301-331.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19,
10-58. Pedersen, P. B. (2003). Culturally biased assumptions in counseling psychology.
The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 396-403.
Ployhart, R. E., & Oswald, F. L. (2004). Applications of mean and covariance structure
analysis: Integrating correlational and experimental approaches. Organizational
Research Methods, 7, 27-65.
Poasa, K. H., Mallinckrodt, B., & Suzuki, L. A. (2000). Causal attributions for problematic
family interactions: A qualitative, cultural comparison of Western Samoa, American Samoa,
and the United States. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 32-60.
Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of
multicultural counseling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shin, J. Y., Berkson, G., & Crittenden, K. (2000). Informal and professional support for
solving psychological problems among Korean-speaking immigrants. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 28, 144-159.
Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2001). Abnormal psychology and culture. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The

handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 265-286). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tang, M. (2002). A comparison of Asian American, Caucasian American, and Chinese col-
lege students: An initial report. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30,
124-134.
Torres, L., & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturative distress among Hispanics: The role of
acculturation, coping, and intercultural competence. Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 32, 155-167.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: John Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. (1975). Social psychology and cultural analysis. Journal of the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 5, 81-106.
Triandis, H. C. (1976). Approaches toward minimizing translation. In R. Brislin (Ed.),
Translation: Applications and research (pp. 229-243). New York: Wiley/Halstead.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 185-195.
United Nations. (2005). Human development indicators. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/
reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf
van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1998). Towards a theory of bias and equivalence. In ZUMA (Centrum
fur Unfragen Methoden und Analysen)-Nachrichten Spezial Band 3: Cross-Cultural
Survey Equivalence (pp. 41-65). Retrieved from http://www.gesis.org/Publikationen/
Zeitschriften/ZUMA_Nachrichten_spezial/zn-sp-3-inhalt.htm
van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). The evolution of cross-cultural research methods. In D.
Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 77-97). New York: Oxford
University Press. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some
practical guidelines.
European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in
cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29-37. Van
Hemert, D. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural
and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between
countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229-1249.
Wei, M., & Heppner, P. P. (2005). Counselor and client predictors of the initial working
alliance: A replication and extension to Taiwanese client-counselor dyads. The Counseling
Werner, O., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the prob-
lem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Hohen (Eds.), A handbook of methods in cultural
anthropology (pp. 398-420). New York: American Museum of Natural History. Weston,
R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The
Ægisdóttir, S., & Gerstein, L. H. (2000). Icelandic and American students’ expectations about
counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 44-53.
Ægisdóttir, S., & Gerstein, L. H. (2005). Reaching out: Mental health delivery outside the box.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 221-224.
Ægisdóttir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Gridley, B. E. (2000). The factorial structure of the expecta-
tions about counseling questionnaire-brief form: Some serious questions. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 3-20.

View publication stats

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling Research

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling Research

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural

Article in The Counseling Psychologist · March 2008

Stefania Aegisdottir Lawrence H. Gerstein

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Deniz Canel Cinarbas

Cross cultural counseling View project

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling

The online version of this article can be found at:

Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association

Email Alerts: http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Equivalence, Bias, and Translations

There is growing interest in international issues in the counseling profes-

THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 36 No. 2, March 2008 188-219

METHODOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND ISSUES

Approaches to Studying Culture

According to Triandis, when using the indigenous approach, researchers are

Methodological Challenges in Cross-Cultural Research

hierarchy presupposing a lower level. These are construct (or structural),

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Relationship Between Bias and Equivalence

measurement-unit equivalence or construct equivalence, where comparative

Selection of Measurement Devices

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Nevertheless, the etic strategy may be limited when trying to understand

Determining Equivalence of Translated Instruments

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Translation. When translating an instrument, bilingual persons who

Back translation. In this procedure, the translated or target version of the

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Decentering. This method was first introduced by Werner and Campbell

Pretests. Following translation and back translation of an instrument and,

Sometimes bilingual individuals are used in lieu of performing back

Statistical Assessment of the Translated Measure

equivalence as well. These techniques indicate equivalence on an instru-

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION METHODS

Another purpose of this article is to examine, analyze, and evaluate

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Evaluation of Included Studies

7. Oh & Neville Korean rapegroup

(e.g., number and qualifications of translators and back translators), while in

Target-language studies. Eight of the 15 studies administered and exam-

committee approach to translation, they relied on back translation, and they

Cross-cultural studies. Four of the 15 studies directly compared two or

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

approach. It is noteworthy that all four studies in this category failed to

Equivalence studies. Two of the 15 studies were treated as separate cases,

indicated just more than half of the 15 studies employed a committee of

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

TABLE 2: Summary of Recommended Translation Practices

Combining Emic and Etic Approaches

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Given our profession’s increased interest in international topics, there is a

solution-focused interventions in line with their cultural norms. Similarly,

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Brislin, R. W. (1983). Cross cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2001). Abnormal psychology and culture. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The

Downloaded from http://tcp.sagepub.com by SJO TEMP 2008 on December 7, 2008

Potrebbero piacerti anche