A 8TCPgisdottirGersteinCinarbas2008

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
UBLICATIONS
39 P ITATIONS 114 P
1,111 C UBLICATIONS 1,406 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Deniz Canel Cinarbas

Middle East Technical University
UBLICATIONS
11 P ITATIONS
97 C
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
iew project
Cross cultural adaptation of the Beliefs About Psychological Services scale for Iceland V
iew project
Cross cultural counseling V
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
Psychometrics Reported
Number, Approach
Citation, Type of Instrument to
Back
and Journal Construct Sample Name Translation Translation
Translation Pretest Original Target
1. Shin, Berkson, & Psychological Immigrants from Six items from the English to Korean Committee Yes
No N/A ATSPPH: Factor analysis
Crittenden (2000); help-seeking Korea Attitudes Toward
AAS: Cronbach's alpha
JMCD attitudes; Seeking Professional
110 Korean immigrants
(N=
traditional values Psychological Help
in U.S.)
(ATSPPH);
Acculturation Attitude
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 Attachment (IPPA); (researchers);
(researchers) Dutch
(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; Southeastern Asian Health Opinion Survey English to Committee Yes
Pilot N/A Exploratory factory analysis
(2002); JCD depression; refugees (interview) Vietnamese,
interviews 867),
for Vietnamese (N=
psychosocial Khmer, Laotian
Cambodian (N=590), and
dysfunction
Laotian (n=723) persons
symptoms
4. Kasturirangan & Culture Latino women A semi structured English to Spanish. Not No
Pilot interview; no N/A Latina professor of foreign
Nutt-Williams Domestic violence interview protocol No discussion of reported
comparison English version language served as an auditor
(2003); JMCD developed by the translation method
between of protocol
to ensure proper translation
researchers: Two
English and
administered to
of transcripts from Spanish
interviews in English,
Spanish version
3) Latina
(n=
to English (n= 7) Latina
seven in Spanish
of protocol
women
women
rior to data
ollection
5. Asner-Self & Attributional style Immigrants from The Attributional Style English to Committee Yes
No N/A Cronbach's alpha, principle
Schreiber (2004); Central America Questionnaire (ASQ) Spanish
components analysis (N=89
MECD
Central American
mmigrants in U.S.)
6. Torres & Rollock Acculturation-related Immigrants from Cultural Adjustment English to Spanish Committee Yes
No Not reported 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
the translated version of
his version
instruments. No comparison
reported between the two language versions
(continued)
TABLE 1: (continued)
Assigned
Psychometrics Reported
Number, Approach
Citation, Type of Instrument to
Back
and Journal Construct Sample Name Translation Translation
Translation Pretest Original Target
7. Oh & Neville Korean rape myth Korean college Illinois Rape Myth English to Korean Single person Yes
Yes; Focus group N/A Study 1: Principle components
(2004); TCP acceptance students Acceptance Scale
4 South
(n= analysis followed by
(IRMAS) (26 items
Korean
exploratory factor analysis
from IRMAS were
nationals)
348 South Korean
(N=
translated and includ-
evaluated each
college students). Study 2:
ed in the preliminary
item from
confirmatory Factor
version of the Korean
IRMAS and 26
analysis, factorial
Rape Myth
items generated
invariance procedure,
Acceptance Scale;
from Korean
Cronbach's alpha, &
KRMAS)
literature. All
MANOVA to establish
tems were in
criterion validity (N=547
orean
South Korean nationals ).
Study 3: Test-retest
40 South
reliability (N=
Korean teachers or school administrators)
8. Asner-Self & Depression, anxiety, Immigrants from Brief Symptom English to Spanish Not reported Yes
Not reported Not reported Not reported. No information
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)
of instruments. Volunteers
robed about the research
xperience.
9. Wei & Heppner Clients' perceptions Counselor-client Counselor Rating English to Mandarin Single person Yes
No N/A Cronbach's alpha,
(2005); TCP of counselor credi- dyads in Taiwan Form-short Version
intercorrelations among
bility; working (CRF-S); The
CRF subscales (construct
alliance Working Alliance
31 counselor/
validity) (N=
Inventory-short
client dyads in Taiwan)
Version (WAI-S)
Cross-cultural studies
10. Marino, Stuart, & Acculturation Anglo-Celtic Developed a English to Vietnamese Committee Yes
Yes (n = 10) Cronbach's alpha, Cronbach's alpha (N=187
Minas (2000); Australians & questionnaire (in
Vietnamese 196
(N=
Vietnamese Australians).
MECD Vietnamese English) measuring
version Anglo-Celtic
Vietnamese participants
immigrants to behavioral and
Australians)
responded to either an English
Australia psychological
or a Vietnamese version of
acculturation, and
the instrument. Statistical
socioeconomic and
evidence of equivalence
demographic
between these two language
influences on
versions of the instrument
acculturation
was not reported
11. Ægisdóttir & Counseling Icelandic & U.S. Expectations About English to Icelandic Committee Yes
Focus Group (n = Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's alpha (N = 261
Gerstein (2000); expectations; college students Counseling
8) Icelandic (N = 225 U.S. Icelandic college students).
JCD Holland's typology Questionnaire (EAC-B);
version college
Covariate analysis (prior
Self-Directed Search
students)
counseling experience) used
(SDS)
to control for method bias.
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
ended response probes
provided
coded the
from QAC and interviews
developed in English)
feedback to
English-
(N = 50). No information
valuate
language
about if themes/codes were
quivalence
responses from
translated from Samoan to
n = 16)
QAC and inter-
English
iews (N = 23)
13. Tang (2002); Career choice Chinese, A questionnaire English to Chinese Single person Yes
No None reported for None reported for Chinese
JMCD Chinese-American, developed in English (researcher)
Caucasian (N = 120) college students
& 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 Immigrants from The Wellness Evaluation English to Korean Single translator No
Yes (n = 3): None reported for None reported for a larger
Myers (2003); Korea of Lifestyle (WEL) whose translations
Bilingual exam- a larger sample sample (N not reported)
MECD were edited by first
inees took both
(N not
author.
the English and
reported)
Discrepancies
the Korean
resolved between
version. Effect
translator and
size (Cohen's d)
editor upon mutual
of difference in
agreement
mean scores
etween
nglish and
orean version
15. Mallinckrodt & Adult attachment Int'l students from The Experiences in English to Chinese Committee Yes
No Split-half Used bilinguals (n = 30
Wang (2004); JCP Taiwan Close Relationships
reliability, Taiwanese international
Scale (ECRS)
Cronbach's
college students) to evaluate
lpha (N = 399
equivalence using DLSH
.S. college
method: within-subjects
tudents)
t test between two language
versions, split-half reliability, Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability and construct validity correlations with a related construct
(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
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. I n
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
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 guidelines.
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 applications.
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
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 Psychologist, 13,
599-614.
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 equivalence 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
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
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
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
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 problem 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 Counseling
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
Ægisdóttir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Gridley, B. E. (2000). The factorial structure of the expectations
about counseling questionnaire-brief form: Some serious questions. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 3-20.

View publication stats

A 8TCPgisdottirGersteinCinarbas2008

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

A 8TCPgisdottirGersteinCinarbas2008

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling

Article​ ​in​ ​The Counseling Psychologist · March 2008

Stefania Aegisdottir Lawrence H. Gerstein

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Deniz Canel Cinarbas

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling Research:

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

Equivalence, Bias, and Translations

There is growing interest in international issues in the counseling

METHODOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND ISSUES IN

Approaches to Studying Culture

There are numerous definitions of ​culture in anthropology and

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

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

Methodological Challenges in Cross-Cultural Research

Equivalence is a key concept in cross-cultural psychology​. ​It addresses

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

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

Another important concept in cross-cultural research is bias. Bias

Relationship Between Bias and Equivalence

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

measurement-unit equivalence or construct equivalence, where comparative statements

Selection of Measurement Devices

A prerequisite to conducting a cross-cultural study is to make sure what is

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

Several statistical methods are available to determine equivalence

Employing a proper translation methodology is extremely important to

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

Translation​. When translating an instrument, bilingual persons who speak

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,

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

Sometimes bilingual individuals are used in lieu of performing back

Statistical Assessment of the Translated Measure

In addition to pretesting a translated scale and judgmental evidence about

equivalence as well. These techniques indicate equivalence on an instru-ment level,

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION METHODS IN SELECT

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

The sample consisted of published studies employing translated

The 15 identified studies were coded by (a) publication source (e.g.,

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

Evaluation of Included Studies

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

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

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

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

As stated previously, the cross-cultural approach to studying cultural

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

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

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

Article in The Counseling Psychologist · March 2008

There are numerous definitions of culture in anthropology and

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

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

Equivalence is a key concept in cross-cultural psychology. It addresses

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

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

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

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

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

Translation. When translating an instrument, bilingual persons who speak

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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