Page created for 1/1/15 site launch, last updated (tweaks) 17/8/19, author CE, licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .
Translating self-report instruments well is not a quick translate/backtranslate process!
Check you have an approved translation.
|CORE translation policy|
– What we don’t do
– Aspirations and process
Translations listed by language:
— all, completed, ongoing or wanted
— approved, completed translations
Translations listed by country
CORE translation policy
We always insisted that all CORE instruments were copyright, to ensure comparability, but always allowed reproduction on paper without any fee. We were very keen for the CORE instruments to be translated for use in as many languages, cultures and countries as would be appropriate on the same principle. However, it was clear to us that there were many terrible translations of self-report measures in existence, that the translation/backtranslation paradigm was flawed as way of securing good translations, and that it would be a challenge to get good translations done with no source of funding (as the instruments were copyleft).
What we don’t do
We noted that companies who charge reproduction fees for measures rarely support good translations and frequently charge people large sums, e.g. $2,500 , for the privilege of doing a translation. We were reliably informed that some then charge a higher reproduction fee on the translated copy than the original.
Aspirations and process
In the past bad translations of measures arose through too much reliance on the translation/back-translation method. That can produce a literal translation which is not a reflection of the design of the measure or good for the target language and culture. We have set requirements for translations (below) which are congruent with the ISPOR guidelines (Wild et al., 2005). Translations must capture the “heart” of CORE: that it should be acceptable to a very heterogeneous group of patients/clients (severely ill, suicidal, depressed, upset, anxious, etc.) and make them feel someone will look at the questionnaire and understand something of how they feel. A good translation need not show exactly the same psychometric parameters, e.g. of reliability, as the English version provided it is not grossly unreliable and that it fits the target language, culture and service setting.
Although it was focused on audiology, Hall et al, 2017 had input from me (CE) and is a comprehensive summary of what’s involved in doing good translation of self-report measures with extensive checklists and guidance, and it’s open access: click here!
Translating the measures for reproduction without explicit permission from the copyright holders, CST, is a breach of copyright and could lead to legal action by us.
All translations MUST follow the CST translation procedure and the specific timing and procedure for the particular translation must be agreed with me (CE) (contact me (CE)) before any translation is started.
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8: 94-104.
Hall, D. A., Zaragoza Domingo, S., Hamdache, L. Z., Manchaiah, V., Thammaiah, S., Evans, C., … ; On behalf of the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus Research NETwork. (2017). A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. International Journal of Audiology, 57(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565.
Content checker target (not for humans!): pW6QTTHWk@UHY