The use of multiple languages in a technology-based intervention study: A discussion paper

Abstract

Background and objectives With an increasing number of racial/ethnic minorities in the U.S., nursing research frequently involves the use of multiple languages, especially to promote the understanding of educational materials related to nursing care. Furthermore, with a recent emphasis on innovation in health-related research, the use of technology is prominent in nursing research. However, practical issues in the use of multiple languages, especially in technology-based intervention studies, have rarely been reported and/or discussed in nursing literature. The purpose of this paper is to identify practical issues in conducting a technology-based intervention study using multiple languages among Asian American breast cancer survivors. Methods In a large-scale technology-based breast cancer intervention study, research team members wrote memos on issues in translation process and plausible reasons for the issues. Then, the memos and written records were analyzed using a content analysis. By using individual words as the unit of analysis, line-by-line coding was done, and idea categories representing practical issues were extracted from the codes. Results Six themes representing the practical issues were extracted. Issues were found in recruiting and retaining bilingual research team members; maintaining consistency in translation process; keeping cultural and conceptual equivalence; repeating IRB protocol modifications; finding and using existing translated versions; and arranging technological aspects related to electronic multiple-language versions. Conclusion The use of multiple languages in a technology-based intervention study is feasible. However, it is necessary to effectively manage unforeseen challenges through various strategies.

A technology‐based information and coaching/support program and self‐efficacy of Asian American breast cancer survivors

“…In this study, a randomized repeated measures control group design was adopted. This was a part of a larger ongoing study that examines the efficacy of a culturally tailored technology-based information and coaching/support program on survivorship experience of Asian American breast cancer survivors (Im et al, 2018(Im et al, , 2019Im, Kim, Yang, & Chee, 2020;Im et al, 2017). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors' institution.…”

“…Again, all the intervention components were accessed through computers, mobile devices, and tablets. More detailed information on the intervention is available elsewhere (Im et al, 2018(Im et al, , 2019Im, Kim, Xu et al, 2020;Im et al, 2017).…”

Components of Culturally Tailored Interventions

“…More details on the practical issues could be found elsewhere. [25][26][27][28][29] In short, the issues included: For this article, using a content analysis, the practical issues were analyzed to extract the themes that reflected the essential components of culturally tailored interventions. First, upon the agreement of 2 analysts, the practical issues from the 3 studies (with quotes from the minutes and diaries) were grouped by the evaluation criteria for rigor in cross-cultural research (cultural relevance, contextuality, flexibility, appropriateness, and mutual respect).…”

Strategies for overcoming language barriers in research

“…Cross-language research refers to research studies where a language barrier is present and data collection must involve the use of interpreters at some stage during the research process (Croot et al, 2011;Squires, 2009;Squires et al, 2013). A critical factor of crosslanguage research, regardless of methodological approach, is that it must be completed in teams (Chapple & Ziebland, 2018;Esposito, 2001;Im et al, 2017;Paulus, Jackson, & Davidson, 2017;Shordike et al, 2010;Stanley & Slattery, 2003). Cross-language research cannot be rigorous unless a team was involved because the interpretation of the data would be subject to the individual biases of a single researcher and are likely to be less representative of the population of interest.…”

“…Methods have evolved and several common methodological considerations emerged. Importantly, cross-language researchers uniformly agree that translation poses a threat to the trustworthiness of qualitative data (Court & Abbas, 2013;Esposito, 2001;Im et al, 2017;Jones & Boyle, 2011;Larkin, Dierckx de Casterlé, & Schotsmans, 2007;MacKenzie, 2015;Temple, 2002Temple, , 2005Temple & Young, 2004;Wong & Poon, 2010;Xian, 2008). Squires (2009) developed criteria from a systematic review of cross-language studies for evaluating how researchers managed translation and then Croot et al (2011) tested the criteria.…”