Surveying cultural and linguistic minorities

Abstract

Cultural and linguistic minorities can be hard to survey either as the target population of interest or as a subpopulation of a general population survey. The challenges associated with studying these minorities are important to understand in order to assess and address the survey error that can be introduced when designing and implementing studies that include these groups. This chapter begins with a description of what constitutes cultural and linguistic minorities, based on a systematic review of the literature (see Chapter 5 in this volume, for a complete description of the process). We note that the literature in this area is largely limited to research among cultural and linguistic minorities in the context of Western and industrialized countries. Therefore, we supplement this literature by drawing upon our own experience and discussions with colleagues who conduct research among cultural and linguistic minorities in other parts of the world. This review is followed by a discussion of the potential challenges faced by researchers interested in surveying cultural and linguistic minorities and approaches taken to address these challenges in the areas of sampling, questionnaire development, adaptation and translation, pretesting, and data collection. We then discuss additional approaches to studying these hard-to-survey populations including qualitative, mixed-methods, and community-based research methods and how these can complement survey methods. The concluding section addresses needed improvements in the documentation and development of research methods to expand solutions and increase the quality of hard-to-survey cultural and linguistic minority research. Defining cultural and linguistic minoritiesThis section sets out the key features of cultural and linguistic minorities. Three core concepts are defined and discussed. First, we define minority populations followed by a discussion of linguistic and cultural minorities. The distinct concept of hard-to-survey is also relevant and discussed in this context (also see Chapter 1 in this volume). On the one hand, it is a relatively straightforward task to define these concepts; however, as we discuss below, applying these definitions in a survey context is far more complicated. Formal definitions serve as a good starting point for this discussion, however. 245https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.

Managerial attitudes and perceived barriers regarding evidence-based practice: An international survey

“…For the convenience of the Belgian and Dutch managers, an independent native English speaker translated the questions into Dutch. The Dutch version was then back translated into English and checked against the original [ 30 ]. Our study was reviewed and approved by the Claremont Graduate University Institutional Review Board (application nr #1753).…”

Cognitive testing of the Colon Cancer Screening Behaviours Survey with South Asian immigrants in Canada

“…Cross-cultural translation and adaptation of measures into another language have been undertaken in a number of studies [ 31 – 33 ]; however, no prior studies have been found that cross-culturally translated and adapted a colon cancer survey into the Urdu language. In one study [ 34 ], a CRC screening questionnaire was translated into Hindi and Gujarati using a bilingual-bicultural committee translation approach derived from translation methods proposed by Harkness and Mohler [ 35 ]. Likewise, in another study [ 36 ], a CRC screening survey assessed behaviours among English speaking SA’s in New York/New Jersey, but no information was provided on whether it was culturally adapted for this SA population.…”

Correction for measurement error in invariance testing: An illustration using SQP

“…The coding scheme of SQP is well defined, covers up to 60 characteristics depending on the survey question, of which only few are in fact subjective and thus up to the coder’s decision [ 38 ]. The developers of SQP have therefore decided not to present intercoder reliability but rather followed a team approach of review and adjudication, as suggested in other research fields such as survey translation [ 39 ]. While complete information about SQP 2.1 can be found elsewhere [ 36 ], for readers’ convenience we present in Annex I the SQP authorized coding of the 54 characteristics of the “economy” question as measured in the ESS.…”