Adapting tests for use in other languages and cultures.

Ercikan, Kadriye; Lyons-Thomas, Juliette

doi:10.1037/14049-026

Cited by 40 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The identification of differential item functioning (DIF) may signal that an item is measuring construct-irrelevant factors such as differential familiarity with item types, formats, or vocabulary knowledge for one or more of the comparison groups (Ercikan, Gierl, McCreith, Puhan, & Koh, 2004;Ercikan & Lyons-Thomas, 2013;Oliveri & Ercikan, 2011). Accurate DIF detection is central to making claims regarding whether an item should be used in an assessment or whether modification is required in order to reduce or eliminate construct-irrelevant variance across comparison groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Population Heterogeneity on Accuracy of DIF Detection

Oliveri

Ercikan

Zumbo

2014

Applied Measurement in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Population Heterogeneity on Accuracy of DIF Detection

Oliveri

Ercikan

Zumbo

2014

Applied Measurement in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, it is evident that the construct of pessimism is not being well captured by these three negatively worded items in Spanish among Mexican Americans. Future efforts to measure pessimism in this population should consider following the detailed steps required to create a culturally adapted measure (see Bravo, 2003; Ercikan & Lyons-Thomas, 2013). Yet, it should be noted that introduction of multiple versions of linguistic translations can be problematic, creating logistical and analytic challenges for studies with diverse samples, and for cross-study comparisons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychometric Properties of English and Spanish Versions of the Life Orientation Test-Revised in Hispanic Americans

Pan

Mills

Fox

et al. 2017

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) is a widely used measure of optimism and pessimism, with three positively worded and three negatively worded content items. This study examined the structural validity and invariance, internal consistency reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of the English and Spanish versions of the LOT-R among Hispanic Americans. A community sample of Hispanic Americans (N = 422) completed self-report measures, including the LOT-R, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, in their preferred language of English or Spanish. Based on the literature, four structural models were tested: one-factor, oblique two-factor, orthogonal two-factor method effects with positive specific factor, and orthogonal two-factor method effects with negative specific factor. Baseline support for both of the English and Spanish versions was not achieved for any model; in all models, the negatively worded items in Spanish had non-significant factor loadings. Therefore, the positively worded three-item optimism subscale of the LOT-R was examined separately and fit the data, with factor loadings equivalent across language-preference groups. Coefficient alphas for the optimism subscale were consistent across both language-preference groups (αs = .61 [English] and .66 [Spanish]). In contrast, the six-item total score and three-item pessimism subscale demonstrated extremely low or inconsistent alphas. Convergent and divergent validity were established for the optimism subscale in both languages. In sum, the optimism subscale of the LOT-R demonstrated minimally acceptable to good psychometric properties across English and Spanish language-preference groups. However, neither the total score nor the pessimism subscale showed adequate psychometric properties for Spanish-speaking Hispanic Americans, likely due to translation and cultural adaptation issues, and thus are not supported for use with this population.

show abstract

“…One strategy to achieve comparability is to use the same item format and test development procedures to produce tests with the same number of sections and the same content. Test-taking behaviors that may be differentially demonstrated across groups include approaches to speededness, acquiescence, unanswered items, tendency towards guessing, and cognizance of social desirability in the test-taking environment (Ercikan & Lyons-Thomas, 2013;Hambleton, 2005).…”

Section: Equivalence In Test Development and Scoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beyond the sociopolitical context, serving as the backdrop of the assessment, is the sociocultural and ecological context of the assessment. This context includes the extent to which there is conceptual similarity in levels of motivation and attitude toward taking the assessments, experience with the testing situation, test behavior (e.g., test-wiseness and speededness), and understanding of constructs across language groups (Ercikan & Lyons-Thomas, 2013). Solano-Flores (2008) posited that differences across these four areas can interact with one another and with students' language and cultural backgrounds in a testing situation to affect student performance on an assessment.…”

Section: Assessment Context: the Sociopolitical Sociocultural And Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One less desirable practice is to directly translate tests across languages without carefully considering the appropriateness of the test in the target language and culture. This practice leads to limited score comparability between test language versions; inaccurate interpretations derived from test scores; and subsequently, unfair test use (Ercikan & Lyons-Thomas, 2013). For example, Hambleton and Patsula (1999) suggested that a reason for poor test translations is that translators are unfamiliar with both cultures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Framework for Developing Comparable Multilingual Assessments for Minority Populations: Why Context Matters

Oliveri

Ercikan

Simon

2015

International Journal of Testing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of linguistic minorities often involves using multiple language versions of assessments. In these assessments, comparability of scores across language groups is central to valid comparative interpretations. Various frameworks and guidelines describe factors that need to be considered when developing comparable assessments. These frameworks provide limited information in relation to the development of multiple language versions of assessments for assessing linguistic minorities within countries. To this end, we make various suggestions for the types of factors that should be considered when assessing linguistic minorities. Our recommendations are tailored to the particular constraints potentially faced by various jurisdictions tasked with developing multiple language versions of assessments for linguistic minorities. These challenges include having limited financial and staffing resources to develop comparable assessments and having insufficient sample sizes to perform psychometric analyses (e.g., item response theory) to examine comparability. Although we contextualize our study by focusing on linguistic minorities within Canada due to its bilingual status, our findings may also apply to other bilingual and multilingual countries with similar minority/majority contexts.

show abstract

Adapting tests for use in other languages and cultures.

Cited by 40 publications

References 59 publications

Effects of Population Heterogeneity on Accuracy of DIF Detection

Effects of Population Heterogeneity on Accuracy of DIF Detection

The Psychometric Properties of English and Spanish Versions of the Life Orientation Test-Revised in Hispanic Americans

A Framework for Developing Comparable Multilingual Assessments for Minority Populations: Why Context Matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About