Abstract:Abstract Background Cross-cultural research with patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assumes that the PROM in the target language will measure the same construct in the same way as the PROM in the source language. Yet translation methods are rarely used to qualitatively maximise construct equivalence or to describe the intents of each item to support common understanding within translation teams. This study aimed to systematically investigate the utility of the Translation Integrity Procedure (TIP), in particular the use of item intent descriptions, to maximise construct equivalence during the translation process, and to demonstrate how documented data from the TIP contributes evidence to a validity argument for construct equivalence between translated and source language PROMs. Methods Analysis of secondary data was conducted on routinely collected data in TIP Management Grids of translations ( n = 9) of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) that took place between August 2014 and August 2015: Arabic, Czech, French (Canada), French (France), Hindi, Indonesian, Slovak, Somali and Spanish (Argentina). Two researchers initially independently deductively coded the data to nine common types of translation errors. Round two of coding included an identified 10th code. Coded data were compared for discrepancies, and checked when needed with a third researcher for final code allocation. Results Across the nine translations, 259 changes were made to provisional forward translations and were coded into 10 types of errors. Most frequently coded errors were Complex word or phrase ( n = 99), Semantic ( n = 54) and Grammar ( n = 27). Errors coded least frequently were Cultural errors ( n = 7) and Printed errors ( n = 5). Conclusions To advance PROM validation practice, this study investigated a documented translation method that includes the careful specification of descriptions of item intents. Assumptions that translated PROMs have construct equivalence between linguistic contexts can be incorrect due to errors in translation. Of particular concern was the use of high level complex words by translators, which, if undetected, could cause flawed interpretation of data from people with low literacy. Item intent descriptions can support translations to maximise construct equivalence, and documented translation data can contribute evidence to justify score interpretation and use of translated PROMS in new linguistic contexts.

Item-based assessment of translation competence: Chimera of objectivity versus prospect of reliable measurement

Measuring translation revision competence and post-editing competence in translation trainees: methodological issues

Assessing Students’ Translation Competence: Integrating China’s Standards of English With Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment Approaches

Translation Quality Evaluation

Assessment In Translation Studies: Research Needs

Calibrated Parsing Items Evaluation: a step towards objectifying the translation assessment

ACES: Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets for Evaluating Machine Translation Metrics

A Bayesian approach to translators' reliability assessment

Scaling Students’ Self-Efficacy on Machine Translation Post-Editing: Psychometric Properties of the Scale and Their Associations

An interdisciplinary approach to neuropsychological test construction: perspectives from translation studies

Convergences and Divergences between Automatic Assessment and Human Evaluation: Insights from Comparing ChatGPT-Generated Translation and Neural Machine Translation

Joss Moorkens, Sheila Castilho, Federico Gaspari, Stephen Doherty (eds): Translation quality assessment: from principles to practice

Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

International Test Comparisons: Reviewing Translation Error in Different Source Language-Target Language Combinations

Translation quality assessment: a critical methodological review

Translation Quality Assessment: A Brief Survey on Manual and Automatic Methods

Comparing the Effect of Product-Based Metrics on the Translation Process

Estimating post-editing effort: a study on human judgements, task-based and reference-based metrics of MT quality

Broader Issues in Test Translation and Validation: A Commentary Inspired by Macina et al. (2023)

Interpreting quality assessment re-imagined: The synergy between human and machine scoring

Identifying the Machine Translation Error Types with the Greatest Impact on Post-editing Effort