As international research studies become more commonplace, the importance of developing multilingual research instruments continues to increase and with it that of translated materials. It is therefore not unexpected that assessing the quality of translated materials (e.g., research instruments, questionnaires, etc.) has become essential to cross-cultural research, given that the reliability and validity of the research findings crucially depend on the translated instruments. In some fields (e.g., public health and medicine), the quality of translated instruments can also impact the effectiveness and success of interventions and public campaigns. Back-translation (BT) is a commonly used quality assessment tool in cross-cultural research. This quality assurance technique consists of (a) translation (target text [TT]) of the source text (ST), (b) translation (TT) of TT back into the source language, and (c) comparison of TT with ST to make sure there are no discrepancies. The accuracy of the BT with respect to the source is supposed to reflect equivalence/accuracy of the TT. This article shows how the use of BT as a translation quality assessment method can have a detrimental effect on a research study and proposes alternatives to BT. One alternative is illustrated on the basis of the translation and quality assessment methods used in a research study on hearing loss carried out in a border community in the southwest of the United States.

Hearing loss is associated with cognitive decline and impairment in daily living activities. Access to hearing health care has broad implications for healthy aging of the U.S. population. This qualitative study investigated factors related to the socio-ecological domains of hearing health in a U.S.–Mexico border community experiencing disparities in access to care. A multidisciplinary research team partnered with community health workers (CHWs) from a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in designing the study. CHWs conducted interviews with people with hearing loss (n = 20) and focus groups with their family/friends (n = 27) and with members of the community-at-large (n = 47). The research team conducted interviews with FQHC providers and staff (n = 12). Individuals experienced depression, sadness, and social isolation, as well as frustration and even anger regarding communication. Family members experienced negative impacts of deteriorating communication, but expressed few coping strategies. There was general agreement across data sources that hearing loss was not routinely addressed within primary care and assistive hearing technology was generally unaffordable. Community members described stigma related to hearing loss and a need for greater access to hearing health care and broader community education. Findings confirm the causal sequence of hearing impairment on quality of life aggravated by socioeconomic conditions and lack of access to hearing health care. Hearing loss requires a comprehensive and innovative public health response across the socio-ecological framework that includes both individual communication intervention and greater access to hearing health resources. CHWs can be effective in tailoring intervention strategies to community characteristics.

Initial results suggest it is feasible to train CHWs to engage community members regarding hearing loss and facilitate culturally relevant peer-health education and peer-support groups for individuals with hearing loss and their family members. In efforts to increase access to audiological services in rural or underserved communities, application of the CHW model with a partnership of audiologists deserves further consideration as a viable approach.