Cross-Cultural Issues in Survey Translation: Translation of Meaning and Meaning of Translation 

Daniel Geller (ORC Macro), 

Andrey Vinokurov, (ORC Macro), and 

Tamara L. Martin (U.S. Department of State) 

ABSTRACT 

The paper outlines the translation process involved in the ORC Macro’s evaluation of the State 

Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and 

Georgia. The IVLP is a long-running program in which foreign professionals and prospective leaders 

from all over the world have the opportunity to participate in funded short-term visits to the United States 

to improve their professional practices and career positions, as well as to provide opportunities for them 

to learn first-hand how democratic institutions and processes, free-market economies, and other values of 

Western democracy and American society are manifested in professional and daily life. The present 

paper adds to the growing literature on translation issues by delineating a step-by-step translation process

that could be used as a blueprint for adjusting translation methods of a survey instrument to fit a particular 

cultural context. The paper also highlights the importance of attending to the theoretical issues in the 

translation process, outlines specific phases of the translation process, presents the modified de-centering 

translation technique adapted for the project, describes the types of translation equivalences that were 

addressed, and discusses contextual factors inherent in the translation process. In the process of 

addressing such a variety of issues, the paper underscores that the meaning and the purpose of the 

translation process is to provide a qualitative approach for the instrument development that maps contexts 

of people’s lives, documents emic-etic aspects of cross-cultural research, and fosters collaborations with 

all stakeholders of the research project. 
Cross-Cultural Issues in Survey Translation: Translation of Meaning and Meaning of Translation 

The research context of our exploration of cross-cultural issues in the translation of survey instruments 

involved ORC Macro’s evaluation of the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program 

(IVLP)1

 in Russia and three other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Ukraine, 

Kazakhstan, and Georgia. The IVLP is a long-running program in which established or potential foreign 

leaders, chosen for their professional merit and leadership potential in a variety of professions, have the 

opportunity to participate in funded short-term visits to the United States. During these professionally 

focused group visits, they meet with their American professional counterparts to learn about American 

practices in the field, travel to several cities to observe American life and culture, and establish informal 

contacts with Americans. These visits, lasting up to 3 weeks, are intended to improve the professional 

practices and career positions of participants, as well as to provide opportunities for them to learn firsthand how democratic institutions and processes, free-market economies, and other values of Western 

democracy and American society are manifested in professional and daily life. Thousands of people from 

all over the world participate in the IVLP each year. The overall objectives of the IVLP program 

evaluation were: 1) to determine the immediate and long-term outcomes of the program experiences on 

the participants, their institutions, and their home countries; 2) to assess the levels of participation in and 

the value of the IVLP for alumni and their affiliated organizations; and 3) to document alumni’s 

demographic and professional characteristics. 

ORC Macro subcontracted the data collection to the Institute for Comparative Social Research (CESSI, 

based on the Russian acronym, a major research company in CIS) that conducted face-to-face, 

questionnaire-driven, structured interviews with 90 percent of the sample, as well as, open-ended, indepth interviews with the remaining 10 percent of the sample. These interviews with the IVLP alumni 

from the four countries inquired about their views of the program; measured the impact of the program on 

their perceptions of democracy, American government, its institutions, culture, society, and people; 

assessed the effects of the program on participants’ professional development; and determined how 

program alumni disseminate acquired professional and cultural information to people and institutions in 

their native country. The interviewing was done in respondents’ native language and required translation 

of the structured and the open-ended instruments, as well as other supporting documentation to provide 

valid comparisons across the four countries. The overwhelming majority of the translation issues that we 

encountered involved the structured questionnaire, while the instrument for the open-ended interviews 

provided enough flexibility that virtually eliminated the translation issues with respect to the precise 

wording of the items. Therefore, this paper focuses on the translation issues pertaining to the structured 

questionnaire, while acknowledging that some of the issues might also be relevant to the open-ended, indepth interviews. 

Issues of translation are long standing and are well addressed in cross-cultural research literature (Brislin, 

1986; Brislin, 1976; Loner, 1981). Unfortunately, some issues still persist. Studies seldom delineate a 

clear theoretical framework underlying the translation process; often fail to document and address 

contextual factors influencing the translation; and still lack the consensus regarding the relative 

importance of various types of translation equivalences and translation techniques. The present paper 

attempts to add to the growing literature on translation issues by delineating a step-by-step translation 

process that could be used as a blueprint for adjusting translation methods to fit a particular cultural 

context. In this process, the paper highlights the importance of attending to the theoretical issues in the 

translation process, outlines the phases of the translation process, presents a translation technique adapted 

for the project, describes the types of translation equivalences that were addressed, presents findings that 

 

1

 In 2004 the International Visitor Program was renamed the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP). 

2
attest to the validity of the translation, and finally, discusses contextual factors inherent in the translation 

process. 

Theoretical Underpinning of Translation Process

We have used the emic-etic distinction (Brislin, 1976 and 1986) as the theoretical guide to instrument 

development and translation. Emic involves the differences in the ways overall constructs are expressed 

in different cultures and is highlighted by the lack of comparable wording. Etic refers to a concept that 

has the same meaning across cultures and therefore has comparable wording in both languages. The 

importance of distinguishing between culture-specific and cross-cultural concepts and phenomena guided 

every step of our instrument development and translation process. Beginning with the development of the 

initial set of items, ORC Macro staff attempted to specifically identify items that tap into emic aspects of 

cultural phenomena and to revise these items by providing additional descriptions and examples of the 

intended meaning. Since these culturally-specific items are unlikely to have equivalent wording in 

different languages and would be hard to translate, we had to add specific descriptions and examples to 

facilitate the translation of the intended meaning. In addition, we realized that people in other countries 

might not have much experience in participating in research projects and would need more detailed 

instructions on how to respond to the questionnaire. Even in the case of the face-to-face interviewing, the 

format of the survey, instructions on how to fill out items, and the congruency between the stem of the 

question and the corresponding items can greatly affect the responding among potentially research-naïve 

respondents. Thus, we’ve formatted the items of the questionnaire to facilitate the flow of the face-toface interviewing, provided detailed instructions on how to fill-out the items, and for some items added 

cards with response options to facilitate responding and reduce burden. 

The emic-etic distinction in the item development also underscored the importance of following the 

recommended cross-cultural translation guidelines for designing the English version of the items (Brislin, 

1986; McGorry, 2000). These guidelines highlight the importance of developing items that would be 

easily translated by attending to such issues as: using simple sentences, active voice, descriptive phrases 

to explain potentially unfamiliar or hard to translate words, and specific rather than general terms, as well 

as avoiding metaphors, colloquialisms, adverbs, and possessive forms. Our focus on the theoretical 

framework for the study emerged from the belief that without a theoretical framework for the translation 

process one might misinterpret some results as support for one’s hypothesis or preconceived notions 

when that might not be the case. Without considering culture-specific aspects of meaning, 

methodological problems with equalizing different language versions, and contextual factors influencing 

the translation process, conclusions regarding cross-cultural differences would be dubious at best. 

Translation Technique Chosen for the Project

The project required surveying the respondents in their native languages, because the majority of IVLP 

alumni do not speak English. Therefore, a major task in this project was the translation of the English 

version of the survey instrument into four languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, and Georgian. 

Traditionally, the technique called for in translation has been the back-translation method, which involves 

translating the instrument from the original language into another language by one set of bilingual 

individuals and then getting another set of bilingual persons to translate the translated version back into 

the original language (Brislin, 1976). This allows the researchers to judge the quality and equivalence of 

translation and consult with the translators about the possible reasons for any inconsistencies, 

mistranslations, lost words, and changes in meaning, which then can be used to revise the translated 

version of the instrument (McGorry, 2000). Although researchers might go through several rounds of the 

revisions, typically, the original-language version is considered the standard against which the translated 

3
version is compared and therefore materials are translated with as little change as possible from the 

original version (Beck, Bernal, and Froman, 2003; Brislin, 1976). 

There are two major problems with the back-translation method. First, if the back-translation version 

appears to lack equivalence in meaning to the original version, it is difficult to determine whether the 

differences are due to poor translation or cultural and linguistic differences inherent to cross-cultural 

research. Second, when the translated version is similar to the original, it still leaves room for the 

uncertainty about the equivalence of the nuances of meaning across cultures and languages. Backtranslation may lack equivalence in meaning and still demonstrate spurious lexical equivalence, thus 

giving the researcher a false sense of security (Brislin, 1976; Birbili, 2000). A simple back-translation 

that forces the translated version to fully correspond to the original may actually lead to semantic 

differences, as concepts have different meanings and are expressed differently across cultures. Therefore, 

difference between the back-translated and the original version of the instrument may not necessarily 

reflect the problem with the intended meaning of the items, but rather reflect the culture specific 

expression of meaning. To disentangle the emic and etic aspects of meaning ORC Macro staff used a 

modified de-centering technique in place of back-translation technique. Typically, de-centering modifies 

the back-translation technique to consider the original language and translated versions as equally 

important (Beck, Bernal, and Froman, 2003) and therefore does not force the translated version to be the 

literal translation of the original. Rather, the translated version is designed to reflect linguistic and 

cultural nuances of the target audience, and the original instrument is revised to incorporate the changes 

(McGorry, 2000). In this process, discussions with the translators are used to reach the consensus 

regarding the wording, meaning, and cultural appropriateness of the translated, as well as the original 

versions. Thus, de-centering allows for the idiosyncrasies of each language and culture to contribute to 

the final version of the instrument (Brislin, 1976). 

We further modified the de-centering method to incorporate a committee approach to the translation 

process (Beck et al., 2003) and used it in place of formal back translation. Therefore, we did not attempt 

to translate the translated version of the instrument back into English because we believe that differences 

could reflect cultural nuances and diverse styles of translators, rather than indicate inaccuracies of 

translation. In our approach, which we call collaborative de-centering, groups of bi-lingual and bicultural individuals—one group for each of the four languages—worked independently to discuss emicetic aspects of items’ meaning, to identify questionable items on the English-language and the translated 

versions, and to reach consensus regarding the meaning and wording of both versions. That was 

specifically done to de-centralize not only the translation of the instrument but the overall translation 

process as well (See Table 1). Thus, the translation process became a truly collaborative effort without 

forcing the translators to blindly accept our research conceptions and definitions of constructs. The main 

role of the ORC Macro staff, in this process, was to facilitate the consensus among the translators and 

ensure that the emerging meaning corresponded to the original intent of the item. 

Table 1. Outline of the Translation Process 

Translation 

Phases Description of the Translation Process 

1 The initial English version of the instrument was developed, specifically focusing on the scale development 

procedures that would facilitate the translation process. 

2 The subcontractor in Russia translated the preliminary English version into Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, and 

Kazakh languages. 

3 

The English and translated versions of the instrument were given to small groups of bi-lingual/bi-cultural 

immigrants in the United States. These persons went item-by-item through the English and the translated 

versions identifying items that were confusing, unclear, culturally inappropriate, lacking equivalent cultural 

connotations, or requiring respondents to use memories that would be difficult to recall. The group members 

discussed with ORC Macro staff the issues of the equivalence of wording, meaning, and cultural connotations. 

After coming to consensus, the translators revised the first translated versions of the instrument. 

4
4 

The revised translated versions of the instrument were then given to the subcontractors in Russia who went 

through the English versions and the adjusted versions and provided their feedback regarding the equivalence of 

the meaning and wording. Also providing feedback were bilingual employees of the U.S. Embassy in each 

country, including Foreign Service nationals who are employed by the U.S. Embassy in their country and work on 

international exchange programs, including IVLP. At this point, the initial English version was adjusted to reflect 

the changes that emerged during the translation process. 

5 Steps 3 and 4 were repeated as required to make sure that all of the involved parties agreed on the equivalence

of meaning, wording, and cultural connotations of the items. 

6 

The final version of the Russian translated instrument was pre-tested with IVLP alumni in Russia. Any 

outstanding issues were resolved by going through another round of discussions and feedback from 

subcontractors and translators in the United States. 

7 

Three items of the final version of the instrument that were identified by some translators, pre-test participants, 

and research respondents as being somewhat confusing or difficult were inquired about in a follow-up with a 

randomly selected 10 percent of the sample. These follow-up respondents provided their feedback regarding 

possible reasons for the ambiguity of the items, as well as rated the items for their difficulty, cultural 

appropriateness, recall problems, and any other factors that might have contributed to the difficulty of the items. 

Types of Translation Equivalence

Since the validity of cross-cultural comparisons rests heavily on the equivalence of the translated 

versions, simple back-translation is insufficient for documenting the equivalence of the different language 

versions of the instrument. Typically, translation equivalence means that two individuals with the same 

amount or level of the construct being measured have equal probabilities of making the same response to 

the different language versions of the same item (Mallinckrodt and Wang, 2004). The first step in the 

process of establishing equivalence involves determining the types of equivalence to be examined. 

Currently, there is lack of consensus of what types of equivalence are crucial for the scale development 

and translation. Many focus on content, semantic, technical, criterion, and conceptual equivalences 

(Beck, Bernal, and Froman, 2003; Flaherty et al., 1988; Mallinckrodt and Wang, 2004). Others stress the 

importance of functional, conceptual, linguistic, and metric equivalences (Loner, 1981; Helms, 1992). 

While some highlight the importance of conceptual, semantic, syntactic, and experiential equivalences 

(Kristjansson, Desrocher, and Zumbo, 2003). Given such a diversity of equivalences that often have 

overlapping definitions, it becomes difficult to specify the precise types of equivalence that must be 

established for the instrument to be valid for cross-cultural comparisons. In our efforts to translate the 

English-language survey into four languages we decided to focus on equalizing meaning, wording, and 

scaling of the items, which are similar to the conceptual, linguistic, and metric types of equivalence. 

Conceptual Equivalence 

Conceptual equivalence is concerned with the meaning that persons attach to specific stimuli, such as test 

items (Loner, 1981). For our project, conceptual equivalence involved overcoming the difficulties in 

reaching a consensus among the translators regarding the meaning of some of the items. Some concepts 

were not easily translatable into Russian or the other languages, partly because of cultural perspective and 

partly because of the historical legacy of the Soviet rule, which still lingers in the everyday context of 

people’s lives. For instance, “community” was an extremely difficult concept to translate, because it has 

a strong nationality connotation in Russian that it lacks in English. Thus, the items that included the word 

“community” had to be revised by providing an alternative wording or by including a description of the 

specific meaning for the word community (See Table 2; item F1.6 and item G4). Another item that had 

strong emic connotation involved assessing the educational attainment of the respondents. Due to the 

differences in the post-secondary educational system in the United States and the former Soviet 

Union/CIS, as well as due to the high educational level of the IVLP participants, the item had to be 

revised to improve its applicability (item A9). 

5
Other items that could not be directly translated and required detailed descriptions involved concepts that 

are specific to a given political, cultural, and societal context. These concepts were work sectors, certain 

democratic principles, and welfare system. Thus, the translated versions of the instrument were revised to 

include descriptions specifying the meaning for public vs. private work sectors (item A8), democratic 

principles in the work place (item D4.7), and social services/welfare system in the United States (item 

F2.9). To establish the conceptual equivalence, ORC Macro staff asked translators to provide 

descriptions of these constructs so that the items reflect respondents’ interpretations of the meaning of the 

constructs. For instance, it was interesting to learn that the meaning of the democratic principles at the 

workplace was perceived as supervisors treating workers fairly, and respecting each team member as an 

individual. Additional examples of the context-specific meaning involved items assessing the importance 

of voting and rule of law (items D4.1 and D4.5). These items could be confusing for the respondents 

living in the CIS, as their definitions and perceptions of these concepts did not directly corresponded with 

the original intent of the English wording. Thus, the importance of the rule of law was augmented in the 

translation (changed from “fundamental to a functioning democracy” to “fundamental to the existence of 

democracy”), while the reason for the importance of voting was diminished (changed from “important 

because real decisions are made in elections” to “important because representatives of the people are 

chosen in elections”). Such an augmentation of the importance of the rule of law and the relative 

diminishing of the importance of voting might be attributed to the current situation in the CIS where the 

government policies and public opinion often stress the importance of establishing the rule of law, 

political stability, and economic development -- frequently at the expense of the democratic freedoms 

(Romanovich, 2003; Levada, 2003). The public opinion in CIS is becoming more disillusioned with 

democratic reforms, principles, and freedoms, distrusting the integrity of the voting process, while 

becoming more preoccupied with reducing crime, fighting corruption, restricting private ownership, and 

establishing economic stability (Laidinen, 2002; Romanovich, 2003; Levada, 2003; Arutiunian, 2003). 

Thus, the use of collaborative de-centering allowed the meaning and the wording on the voting and rule of 

law to emerge in a way that is congruent with cultural context of the respondents. This demonstrates the 

utility of the translation process as a qualitative tool for uncovering cross-cultural variations in the 

specific meaning of constructs. 

 

Table 2. Revisions of Items to Establish Conceptual Equivalence 

Item 

Number Original Items Revised Items 

A6.5. Government agency, parliament, or court at 

the national level. 

Government—executive, legislative, or judicial at the federal level. 

A8. Have you changed work sectors (public or 

private) since returning to your home country 

following your IVLP visit? 

Since returning to your home country following the IVLP visit, did you 

continue to work in an organization with the same type of ownership 

(government or non-government) as before participation in the 

IVLP, or begun working in organization with a different type of 

ownership? For example, before you were working in the 

government sector and now you are working in non-government 

sector, or vise versa. 

A9. What is the highest level of education you 

have completed? 

1. High school 

2. Trade, vocational, or technical training, 

after high school 

3. Some university, no degree 

4. University degree 

5. Advanced academic degree, such as 

candidacy or doctoral degree 

6. Other, specify 

What is the highest level of education you have right now? 

1. Some university (no degree or diploma) 

2. University degree—Bachelor’s 

3. University degree—Specialist or Master’s or equivalent (five 

years studying at the university with diploma) 

4. Incomplete postgraduate education (without defended 

dissertation) 

5. Completed postgraduate education (candidacy/advanced 

scientific degree or doctorate) 

6. Other, specify 

D4.1. Voting is important because real decisions 

are made in elections. 

Voting is important because representatives of the people are 

chosen in elections. 

D4.5. The Rule of Law is fundamental to a 

functioning democracy. 

The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle to the existence of

democracy. 

D4.7. Democratic principles enhance the workplace 

-- supervisors should incorporate democratic 

Democratic principles enhance the workplace -- supervisors should 

incorporate democratic principles into their management practices 

6
principles into their management practices. (such as treat workers fairly, respect each team member as an 

individual). 

F1.6. ...voluntary community service. ...voluntary public service. 

F2.9. ...social services/welfare in the United 

States. 

...social services system in the United States, social assistance 

programs for population groups with limited opportunities

(welfare). 

G4. As a direct result of your participation in the 

IVLP, have you done or received any of the 

following in your community? 

As a direct result of your participation in the IVLP, have you 

participated in the following activities for the good of the 

neighborhood/district where you are living (such as work with 

school, projects to protect the environment, demonstration of 

leadership qualities during the decisions or negotiations regarding 

disputable issues with representatives of the local government)? 

Linguistic Equivalence 

Linguistic equivalence deals with equating words and sentences on survey items, so that the same 

meaning is communicated (Loner, 1981). In our project, linguistic equivalence became an especially 

important issue as we tried to equate the meaning and wording of the items for Russian and Ukrainian 

versions of the instrument. Many Ukrainians, especially those who are college educated, speak and read 

Russian in daily life. Indeed, only recently has the use of the Ukrainian language begun to expand in 

response to the government actions. Thus, we expected that the vast majority of respondents in Ukraine 

would be bi-lingual Russian and Ukrainian speakers. As a result, great care was taken in equating the 

meaning and wording for the Russian and Ukrainian versions of the instrument, as respondents might 

choose to respond to either of the two versions. While Russian and Ukrainian are closely related 

languages, there are numerous differences between them that we had to accommodate. We did this 

through triangulation process, adjusting the wording and meaning simultaneously for the English, 

Russian, and Ukrainian versions of the instrument using a group of tri-cultural, tri-lingual translators. 

Most of the changes required to establish linguistic equivalence involved changing specific words to 

make sentences more grammatically and linguistically appropriate for the native speakers. The 

importance of making items grammatically and linguistically correct was specifically stressed by the 

translators, who pointed out that the high educational level of the respondents might make them frustrated 

and reluctant to respond to the items that “do not sound right” for a native speaker. Interestingly, in the 

process of adjusting the wording the meaning of the items was slightly changed. For example, views was 

changed to perceptions (see Table 3, item B4), experience was translated as participation (item B7), 

appreciation was altered to respect (item F5.2), and communicate came back as maintain relationships

(item I4). These and other changes in wording slightly altered the meaning of the items, often by making 

them more discrete and expressive, which helped to highlight the underlying intent of the items. For 

instance, maintaining contacts points to behavioral involvement and underscores the active role of the 

alumni, as compared with a more passive version of remained in contact (item E1). Similar augmentation 

in meaning emerged for the words introduced, which was changed to implemented (item G2.8), attended

vs. participated (item I1.1), and initiate vs. implement (item G2). The stronger connotations in the 

wording actually assisted in reducing ambiguity about the meaning and highlighted the importance of 

adjusting the original English version of the instrument, rather than forcing the nuances of the original 

version into awkwardly worded and possibly confusing translations. 

Table 3. Revisions of Items to Establish Linguistic Equivalence 

Item 

Number Original English Wording Adjusted English Wording 

B4. How did your views of the U.S. government and the 

American people change as a result of your IVLP 

participation? 

How did your perceptions of the U.S. government and the 

American people change as a result of your IVLP participation? 

B7. The IV Program helps to... 

B7.4. ...develop friendly, sympathetic, and 

peaceful relations between the United States and 

The IV Program helps to... 

B7.4. Develop friendly, positive, and peaceful relations 

between the United States and other countries. 

7
other countries of the world. 

D3. 

D3.4. 

To what extent do you think your IVLP experience

enhanced your abilities in the following areas? 

...communicate more accurate information about 

the United States and Americans to people in 

your country. 

To what extent do you think your participation in the IVLP 

gave you an ability to make your contribution to the following 

areas? 

...communicate more credible information about the 

United States and Americans to people in your home 

country. 

E1. Have you remained in contact with people you met 

during your IV exchange program? 

Are you maintaining contacts with people that you met during 

your IVLP visit? 

F2. To what extent do you feel your IVLP experience

helped to increase your understanding of the 

following aspects of the United States? 

To what extent did your experience participating in the IVLP 

help you better understand the following aspects of the U.S.? 

F5.2. ...appreciation of the United States and Americans. ...respect of the United States and Americans. 

G2. 

G2.8. 

Have you used the knowledge or experience gained 

in the IVLP to initiate any of these formal or 

informal changes in your organization or work? 

...Introduced new policies or procedures. 

Have you used the knowledge or experience gained during the 

participation in the IVLP for the implementation of the 

following official or unofficial changes in your organization or 

work? 

...Implemented new work methods or procedures. 

I1.1. Attended events held at U.S. Alumni Resource 

Centers or IATP (Internet Access and Training 

Program) Centers for IVLP/DOS exchange alumni. 

Participated in events held at U.S. Alumni Resource Centers 

or IATP (Internet Access and Training Program) Centers for 

IVLP/DOS exchange alumni. 

I1.12. Mentored new participants or alumni of the IVLP or 

other DOS exchange programs. 

Instructed new participants or alumni of the IVLP or other 

DOS exchange programs. 

I4. Please indicate which of the following groups of 

people do you currently communicate with? 

Please indicate which of the following groups of people you 

currently maintain relationships with? 

Metric Equivalence 

Metric equivalence refers to measures in different languages being scored equivalently, thus assessing a 

construct at the same level across cultural contexts (Loner, 1981). In our case, issues with the metric 

equivalence of translation involved overcoming the difficulties in translating the meaning of response 

options for scales, such as not at all, somewhat, moderately, and very much. For instance, in Russian and 

Ukrainian, the translations for somewhat and moderately are not as distinct as they appear to be in 

English, thus highlighting the notion that the meaning of scale scores can be different across cultures 

(Helms, 1992). To ensure metric equivalence we revised the response options for the scales by providing 

a continuum that would be linguistically appropriate and conceptually comparable across the translated 

versions (See Table 4). For some of the scales this involved changing the wording to provide 

linguistically and conceptually accurate response options. For example, very dissatisfied was changed to 

absolutely dissatisfied, while very satisfied was translated as completely satisfied. Even though it seems 

that the wording for the response options is not comparable within the scale, the conceptual and linguistic 

equivalence was actually improved. Absolutely and completely provided much stronger alternatives to 

very and established linguistically appropriate combinations for the words dissatisfied and satisfied. The 

stronger wording for the anchors of the scales actually aided in addressing the issue of response style 

reported in cross-cultural research. It has been found that ethnically and culturally diverse populations 

often exhibit differences in response style that consistently skews their use of the extreme ends of 

response scales (Clarke, 2000). One way to address response style cross culturally is to use scales of at 

least 5 points, which tend to reduce the effects of the extreme response style (Clarke, 2000). However, 

we addressed this issue conceptually, rather than methodologically, by wording the extreme anchors for 

the scale more strongly (absolutely or completely vs. very), which may have made such options more 

specific, less likely to be used excessively, and more equivalent to the English scale. In translating the 

response format options, ensuring the linguistic and conceptual appropriateness of the options for each 

item was more important than establishing the linguistic equivalence to the English version. For example, 

while the word very was changed to address issues of extreme response style when used with dissatisfied 

and satisfied, while very was retained for the response scale involving the word valuable. Very valuable

was a linguistically appropriate choice of words and as a result, no changes were implemented (See Table 

4). 

8
Other changes to the response options of the scales emerged from the discussions with the translators, 

who suggested that people in the CIS might not be very versed in responding to the structured 

questionnaires and may require additional aids for keeping track of the stem of the question, the 

corresponding items, and the response options. Thus, we revised the response options for some of the 

scales by incorporating the stem of the question into the scale, which assisted respondents in answering 

the items. For instance, the original question stated: “To what extent do you feel your IVLP experience 

helped to increase your understanding of the following aspects of the United States?”. For each of the 

items, respondents rated their perceptions on the scale from “Not At All” to “To a Great Extent”. 

However, the translators advocated for the revision of the response options to incorporate the answer to 

the question as an aid to remind respondents that the items should be rated with respect to the change in 

their understanding. As a result, the revised version of the question read as: “To what extent your 

experience participating in the IVLP helped you better understand the following aspects of the U.S.?” on 

the scale from “Did not help at all” to “Helped very much”. Other changes of the response options that 

were incorporated the stem of the question into the scale are presented in Table 3. Overall, the changes to 

the wording and format of the response options for the scales, required for establishing the metric 

equivalence, highlighted once again the importance of keeping the original English version of the 

instrument flexible to allow the linguistically and conceptually appropriate changes to emerge. 

Table 4. Revisions to the Response Options for the Scales to Establish Metric Equivalence 

Type of 

Changes 

Type of 

Scale Response Options of the Scales 

English 

scale: 

Not at all 

Valuable Slightly Valuable Moderately Valuable Very Valuable 

Adjusted 

English 

scale 

Absolutely notvaluable Slightly Valuable Valuable Very Valuable 

English 

scale: Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied 

Adjusted 

English 

scale 

Absolutely 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Completely Satisfied 

English 

scale: Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure/ 

No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree 

Wording 

Adjusted 

English 

scale 

Absolutely 

Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor 

Disagree Agree Absolutely Agree 

English 

scale: Not at all To a Small Extent To a Moderate Extent To a Great Extent 

Adjusted 

English 

scale 

Did not help at all Helped Slightly Helped to some 

extent 

Helped very 

much 

English 

scale: Not at all To a Small Extent To a Moderate Extent 

To a 

Great Extent 

Adjusted 

English 

scale 

Absolutely did not 

Enhance 

Enhanced 

Slightly 

Enhanced to 

some extent 

Very much 

Enhance 

English 

scale: Not at all To a Small Extent To a Moderate Extent To a Great Extent 

Incorporating 

answers into 

scales 

Adjusted 

English 

scale 

Did not share at 

all Shared slightly Shared to some 

extent 

Shared very 

much 

Additional Efforts in Documenting Equivalence

The whole process of equalizing the instrument across languages creates the paradox of equivalence. 

Scores of respondents in different countries may represent not only the difference in constructs measured 

9
by the instrument, but also the differences in perceived meaning attributed to the items of the instrument 

(Van der Veer, Ommundsen, Hak, and Larsen, 2003). The more effort that is spent equalizing the 

perceived meaning of the different language versions of the instrument, the less likely cultural differences 

are to emerge. In contrast, without equalizing the measures, apparent cultural differences that emerge 

might be due to the inadequacies in establishing equivalence, rather than real cultural differences (Loner, 

1981). In an effort to check for the role of translation equivalence in influencing the cultural differences 

across the language versions of the instrument, we conducted follow-up telephone interviews, in Russian, 

with a randomly selected 10 percent of the respondents. 

We’ve asked follow-up respondents specific queries about three questions identified during the pre-test 

and data collection as being potentially confusing. These questions assessed respondents’ attitudes about 

various aspects of American democracy, changes in respondents’ views of the U.S. government and 

American people, as a result of IVLP participation, and extent to which the IVLP experience enhanced 

respondents’ abilities to contribute to their own country’s political, economic, and social development 

(See Table 5). We asked respondents to rate the presented questions—using a 4-point scale (from Not At 

All to Very Much)—on the extent to which the question's difficulty or confusion might be due to the 

following issues: 1) problems in understanding the meaning and/or wording of the question; 2) difficulties 

recalling the details of the IVLP experience; 3) cultural inappropriateness of the question; 4) problems in 

separating the impact of the IVLP from the impact of anything else that might have happened since the 

IVLP visit; and 5) any other factors contributing to the difficulty of the questions. Respondents were 

specifically encouraged to elaborate on their responses and explain reasons why three questions might 

have presented problems for them. 

Table 5. Questions Rated by the Follow-Up Respondents with Respect to Difficulties 

Three Questions for the Follow-up Assessment 

D3. To what extent do you think your IVLP experience enhanced your abilities in the following areas? 

Your IVLP visit enhanced your ability to... 

D3.1. ...contribute to your home country’s political processes. 

D3.2. ...contribute to your home country’s economic development. 

D3.3. ...contribute to your home country’s social and/or civil development. 

D3.4. ...communicate more accurate information about the United States and Americans to 

people in your home country. 

D4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 

D4.1. Voting is important because representatives of the people are chosen in elections. 

D4.2. Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy. 

D4.3. An independent media is important to the free flow of information. 

D4.4. All citizens in a country should have equal rights and protections under the law, regardless 

of circumstances. 

D4.5. The Rule of Law is fundamental to a functioning democracy. 

D4.6. Individuals and organizations have the right to free speech and to voice opposition. 

D4.7. Democratic principles enhance the workplace -- supervisors should incorporate democratic 

principles into their management practices, such as treat workers fairly, respect individuals. 

B4. How did your views of the U.S. government and the American people change as a result of your 

IVLP participation? 

IVLP participation changed in your views of the: 

B4.1. U.S. Government 

B4.2. American people 

10
The largest percentages of respondents indicated problems with the presented questions that were not 

related to translation. Although, about 12 percent of respondents indicated having problems with the 

meaning and wording of the questions about democracy and views of the American government/people, 

their responses revealed that these problems were not indicative of poor translation quality (See Table 6). 

People reported being uncomfortable answering these questions mostly because their IVLP visit was 

focused more on the professional and technical aspects, rather than democracy and government of the 

United States. Some respondents mentioned their desires to stay away from politics and politically 

related conversations and as a result, had a difficult time responding to the detailed questions about their 

perceptions of the various aspects of the democracy, American government, and Americans. The nontranslation difficulties were further highlighted by the quarter of the follow-up respondents who indicated 

that they had problems with the questions about the government and people of the United States due to 

the numerous events happening in the world since their return from the IVLP, which affected their views. 

Other issues with the questions mentioned by smaller proportions of the respondents involved the short 

length of their visit, which prevented them from forming concrete impressions of the government and the 

democracy, as well as respondents’ modesty in estimating their abilities to contribute to their home 

countries. Interestingly, many respondents used the open-ended queries of the follow-up assessment to 

express their satisfaction with the IVLP, describe their amazement at the politeness and friendliness of 

Americans, as well as to lament on not having in their home countries certain aspects of American 

democracy, rule of law, and social security. Overall, these results suggest that even the difficult questions 

of the survey still exhibited good translation quality. Fewer than 4 percent indicated any cultural 

inappropriateness of the items. 

Table 6. Responses to the Queries About the Difficulties in Responding to Questions 

Difficulties in Responding to Questions Percent 

Endorsing 

Various aspects of American democracy (item D4) 

Problems in understanding the meaning and/or wording of the question 10.6% 

Difficulties recalling the details of your IVLP experience 3.6% 

Cultural inappropriateness of the questions 3.6% 

Problems in separating the impact of the IVLP from the impact of anything else that 

might have happened since 1.8% 

Any other factors 5.3% 

Changes in respondents’ views of the U.S. government and American people 

(item B4) 

Problems in understanding the meaning and/or wording of the question 12.4% 

Difficulties recalling the details of your IVLP experience 5.3% 

Cultural inappropriateness of the questions 3.6% 

Problems in separating the impact of the IVLP from the impact of anything else that 

might have happened since 26.4% 

Any other factors 21.0% 

Extent to which IVLP experience enhanced abilities to contribute to home country 

(item D3) 

Problems in understanding the meaning and/or wording of the question 3.6% 

Difficulties recalling the details of your IVLP experience 5.3% 

Cultural inappropriateness of the questions 1.8% 

Problems in separating the impact of the IVLP from the impact of anything else that 

might have happened since 5.3% 

Any other factors 5.3% 

11
Contextual Influences on the Translation Process

In addition to the efforts in establishing equivalence of the translation, the accurate interpretation of the 

results requires documentation of any contextual and procedural factors that might have influenced the 

translation process. In this process, special attention should be given to describing the characteristics of 

the translators, as well as the procedures. The quality of the translation depends heavily on the 

qualifications, knowledge, and cultural experiences of the translators (Beck et al., 2003). Thus, the 

translators must be knowledgeable of not only the language, but also the culture, research goals, concepts 

of interest, and purpose of the items (Kristjansson, Desrocher, and Zumbo, 2003). This underscores the 

importance of developing truly collaborative relationships with the translators. For instance, it has been 

reported that translators in East European countries might be reluctant to disagree with Western 

researchers (Temple, 1997). That was not our experience. However, without developing collaborative 

relationships and discussing various conceptual and methodological aspects of the project, we might have 

been perceived as forcing our perceptions and definitions of constructs on the translators, which could 

then bias the results. Furthermore, it is essential to document any personal or contextual influences that 

translators might have brought to the translation process. Given vast intra-cultural differences, translators 

are likely to have different attitudes, values, assumptions, and concerns regarding the concepts of the 

study. As a result, different translators might interpret and translate the meaning of the items differently. 

Describing the translators involved in the project and documenting the translation-related issues, 

problems, discussions, and decisions that were used to produce the translated instruments is essential for 

indicating the cultural, social, and political perspective from which the findings might be interpreted 

(Birbili, 2000; Temple, 1997; Temple and Edwards, 2002). 

In our research project, we were fortunate to have highly qualified bilingual translators, all of whom were 

natives of the countries in which the study was conducted, possessed excellent knowledge of English, 

were aware of the cultural context, and were familiar with the research topics and goals. These people 

included professional translators, social scientists with extensive experience in survey and evaluation 

research, and an expert in intercultural education who has taught cross-cultural courses at the State 

Department’s National Foreign Affairs Training Center. We also had the input on the translations from 

the State Department and the U.S. Embassy’s Public Affairs office in each country, particularly from the 

Foreign Service nationals, who are bilingual natives of the country working for the embassy and 

participating in many aspects of the IVLP. Our translators included immigrants to the United States from 

each of the countries involved. These truly bi-cultural and bi-lingual individuals from Russia, Ukraine, 

Georgia, and Kazakhstan could check for the equivalence of cultural nuances of meaning in English as 

well as the translation, and identify items that have non-equivalent cultural connotations. Without bicultural individuals, some cultural undertones in English and the translated versions might have been left 

unnoticed. For instance, to adequately translate questions about democracy the translators had to be 

aware of not only the culturally appropriate expressions of meaning in the translation, but also had to be 

knowledgeable of the original intent and the meaning of the items in English, which required first-hand, 

in-depth knowledge of various aspects of democracy in the United States. 

The translators worked in groups, discussing every point of concern with the translation, and ultimately 

coming to the agreement on the translation. In this process, we specifically focused on developing 

rapport and collegial relationships with the translators, as they are the true experts in the language and 

culture we are studying. This became an important issue as some translators initially became defensive 

when some of their suggestions were not fully incorporated into the instrument. Thus, we spent a great 

deal of time responding to their questions and concerns, specifically explaining the reasons why some of 

their changes were not used. This helped us to avoid giving the impression of being authoritative, which 

is a particularly sensitive issue for those from these countries, especially when working with Americans. 

Developing the collaborative relationships with the translators was essential for arriving at the consensus 

on the translation, as well as for the progress of the research project. 

12
Suggestions for Future Research

Overall, the present paper delineates numerous translation issues ranging from emic-etic aspects of the 

meaning to specific examples of linguistic equivalence, describes the modified de-centering translation 

technique, and highlights the importance of developing truly collaborative relationships with the 

translators. In the process of addressing such a myriad of issues, the whole translation process evolved 

from translating the meanings of the instrument into providing the meaning for the translation. We have 

realized that the meaning and the purpose of the translation process is to provide a qualitative approach 

for the instrument development that maps contexts of people’s lives, fosters collaborations, and 

documents emic-etic aspects of cross-cultural research. This further highlighted the importance of 

developing first-hand knowledge of the experiences, life domains, and settings of importance to 

individuals (Swindle & Moos, 1992). Human behavior and cognitions are greatly affected by the nature 

of the cultural, social, historic, and material context of the settings within which they occur and as a 

result, instrument development must match contextual conditions of people’s lives (Trickett, 1996; 

Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994; Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1993). The translation process becomes an 

important part of the research by assisting in developing culturally and contextually congruent 

conceptualizations, instruments, and interpretations of findings. It is our hope that the translation process 

outlined in this paper can serve as a blueprint for adjusting translation methods to fit the particular 

cultural context. 

13
References 

Arutiunian, I. V. (2003). On the social structure of post-Soviet Russia. Sociological Research, 42, 44-61. 

Beck, C. T., Bernal, H., and Froman, R. D. (2003). Methods to document semantic equivalence of a 

translated scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 64-73. 

Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner, W. J. & 

 Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly 

 Hills, CA: Sage. 

Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal 

of Psychology, 11, 215-229. 

Birbili, M. (2000). Translating from one language to another. Social Research Update, 31. 

(http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU31.html) 

Clarke, I. (2000). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: An empirical investigation. Journal 

of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 137-152. 

Flaherty, J. A., Gaviria, F. M., Pathak, D., Mitchell, T., Wintrob, R., and Richman, J. A. (1988). 

Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. Journal of Nervous and Mental 

Disorders, 176, 257-263. 

Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability 

testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101. 

Kristjansson, E. A., Desrocher, A., and Zumbo, B. (2003). Translating and adapting measurement 

instruments for cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research: A guide to practitioners. Canadian 

Journal of Nursing Research, 35, 127-142. 

Laidinen, N. V. (2002). The image of Russia in Russian public opinion. Sociological Research, 41, 32-

39. 

Levada, I. A. (2003). Homo Post-Sovieticus. Russian Social Science Review, 44, 32-67. 

Lonner, W. J. (1981). Psychological tests and intercultural counseling. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, 

W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Tremble (Eds.), Counseling Across Cultures, (pp. 275-303). Honolulu: 

East-West Center and University of Hawaii. 

Mallinckrodt B., and Wang, 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. 

McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues. 

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 2, 74-81. 

Romanovich, N. A. (2003). Democratic values and freedom “Russian Style”. Sociological Research, 42, 

62-68. 

Swindle, R. W., & Moose, R. H. (1992). Life domains in stressors, coping, and adjustment. In Walsh, 

W. B., Craik, K. H., & Price, R. H. (Eds.) Person-Environment Psychology: Models and 

Perspectives (pp. 1-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Temple, B. (1997). Watch your tongue: Issues in translation and cross-cultural research. Sociology, 31, 

607-618. 

Temple, B., and Edwards, R. (2002). Interpreters/translators and cross-cultural research: Reflexivity and 

border crossing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, (2), 

(http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/english/engframeset.html). 

Trickett, E. J. (1996). A future of community psychology: The context of diversity and diversity of 

contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 209-234. 

Trickett, E. J., Watts, R. W., & Birman, D. (1993). Human diversity and community psychology: Still 

hazy after all these years. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 264-279. 

Trickett, E. J., Watts, R. W., & Birman, D. (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

14
Van der Veer, K., Ommundsen, R., Hak, T., and Larsen, K. S. (2003). Meaning shift of items in different 

language versions: A cross-national validation study of illegal aliens scale. Quality and Quantity, 

37, 193-206. 

15