Is traditional back translation enough? Comparison of translation methodology for an ASD screening tool.
Michaela DuBay, John Sideris, Erica Rouch
PMID 35913014WHAT IT FOUND
A translation method that included cultural adaptation produced a screening tool that parents preferred and used more evenly, but they abandoned it more often than the standard back-translation version.
The adapted version was longer, which likely caused the dropouts.
Key findings
01The culturally adapted version and the traditional back-translated version were not psychometrically equivalent, meaning the same child behaviors were interpreted differently by the two groups.
02Parents preferred the culturally adapted wording 63% of the time, but completion rates were significantly lower for this version (86.7%) compared to the traditional version (96.7%).
03The traditional version led to more extreme responses (choosing 'always' or 'never'), while the adapted version resulted in a more even distribution of answers across the scale.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study did not have diagnostic outcomes for the children, so it is unknown which translation was more accurate for identifying autism. The sample was limited to Latin American Spanish speakers in the US, so results may not apply to other Spanish dialects or cultures. The qualitative interviews included only 14 participants, which is a small number for generalizing preferences. The study compared two specific translation methods for one tool; results may not apply to other screening instruments.
Declared interests
The research was supported by non-U.S. government funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the culturally adapted version is clinically superior just because parents preferred it. It had a lower completion rate, meaning more families left the screening incomplete, which could lead to missed diagnoses if the tool is used in practice without accounting for this burden.