5.1 Introduction
There is an increase in the number of educational and psychological measures being translated into multiple languages for use across diverse cultures (Hambleton & Zenisky, 2011). One of the core challenges facing psychologists is to establish that translated instruments are valid and reliable (Beins, 2010). For example, researchers need to ensure that measures are culturally acceptable and appropriately translated for the target individuals to whom they will be administered (Cha, Kim, & Erlen, 2007). With regard to psychological measures, Geisinger (1994) noted that the process of adapting measures is often done without paying much care to the differences that exist between the culture in which the original instruments were developed and the target culture of the adapted ones.
Different approaches to cross-cultural translation have been adopted to translate original versions of instruments from one language into target ones.
One approach involves a committee panel of two or more experienced translators who independently produce two versions of the translated
instrument (Sperber, 2004). In contrast, the technical approach to translation (Kleinman, 1987), is based on several processes including translation by a group of bilingual translators, back translation of the translated instrument into the source language by another group of bilingual translators, and
negotiating the differences between the two groups to reach a final version of the translated instrument. A third approach is the standard back translation (Brislin, 1986; Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973), which has been the most commonly used method of translating instruments in the field of social sciences. It involves two versions of the instruments: one in the source
language and the other back translated in the target language. The comparison of the two versions allows for discovering issues and problems relevant to both content and constructs equivalence of the two instruments; and therefore allows for the adjustment of the final version.
The literal or back-translation of measures from one language into another language does not necessarily ensure validity (Su & Parham, 2002).
The items of the translated measures are said to be valid for use across
different cultures if they are both translated literally and adapted culturally to
ensure their content validity across cultures (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, &
Ferraz, 2000). In other words, achieving equivalence between the original version and the target version of a measure involves both linguistic and cultural considerations of the target population to whom the translated measures will be applied (Banville, Desrosiers, & Genet-Volet, 2000).
To avoid the problems resulting from literal or back translation, Vallerand’s method (Vallerand, 1989) is adopted in the present study. It is a cost effective technique that can be implemented with few resources. It consists of a multi-level procedure that relies mainly on a committee of
translators and subject matter experts, bilingual reviewers, and lay participants who are administered both the original source of instrument and the translated version to determine the construct equivalence of the items. It also makes use of statistical procedures to ensure that the translated measure is valid and reliable which applied in the target culture.
In addition to the usefulness of translating measures from one language to another, the adaptation of existing measures for a new target population is needed, especially when this new population is culturally different to the original population with whom the measures are used (Geisinger, 1994). The adaptation of such exiting measures is a multi-level process that involves removing some items of the original measure, replacing some items with new ones, and applying several translation processes that emphasize the
equivalence of concepts (Tran, 2009). One method of assessing the validity of the adapted measure is through an analysis of the similarity of research findings between the two versions (Hambleton & Patsula, 1998).
The current study translated a series of questionnaires related to children’s behaviours and feelings from English into Arabic following
Vallerand’s translation and adaptation guidelines (Vallerand, 1989). Its aim was to establish the validity and reliability of scales that will be used with Saudi children. These include Beck Youth Inventories-II (BYI-II, Beck et al., 2005), the Aggression Scale (Orpinas & Frankowski, 2001) , the Other As Shamer Scale (OAS, Goss et al., 1994), and the Stigma Scale (Austin et al., 2004). All
measures will be administered to institutionally reared and typically developing children growing up with their biological parents, expect for the Stigma Scale which will be administered only to institutionalised children and their carers.
The study had two specific goals:
1. To investigate the extent to which the instruments are culturally acceptable with children from Saudi Arabia; and
2. To explore the reliability and the validity of the adapted and translated questionnaires
5.2 Methods
5.2.1 Ethical approval
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Psychology’s Ethics Committee and the University’s Research Governance body at the University of Southampton, UK, and the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia. Before
starting the translation and adaptation processes of the Beck Youth Inventories-II (BYI-II, Beck et al., 2005), the Aggression Scale (Orpinas &
Frankowski, 2001), the Other as Shamer scale (OAS, Goss et al., 1994) and the Stigma Scale (Austin et al., 2004) , permissions were obtained from their original authors to translate the scales into Arabic and to use them in the current study. The Ethical Committee of Southampton University and the Saudi Authority of Institutional Care required the researcher to delete item (e.g., I wish I were dead) in Beck Depression Inventory since it expressed suicidal thoughts. As a result, the Beck Depression Inventory had 19 items instead of 20.
5.2.2 Measures
Beck Youth Inventories –II (BYI-II, Beck et al., 2005). Self-report symptoms of self- concept, anxiety, depression, anger, and disruptive
behaviours can be measured individually by using the Beck Youth Inventories, Second Edition(BYI-II, Beck et al., 2005), that comprised five scales: self-concept (BSCI-Y), anxiety (BAI-Y), depression (BDI-Y), anger (BANI-Y) and disruptive behaviour (BDBI-Y), developed for use with children and young people aged between 7-18 years. These inventories can be used separately or in combination; each scale contained 20 items in approximate length and taking around 5 to 10 minutes each to complete. The responses to each item are rated on a 4- point Likert scale ranging from 0 = never to 3 = always, generating a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 80. For each scale, scores can be converted to T-scores. For anxiety, depression, anger and
disruptive behaviour scales, T-scores of 70 and above considered as extremely elevated, 60-69 represent moderately elevated, 55-59 indicated mildly
elevated, 55 and below indicated as average. For the self-perception T-scores greater than 55 indicate above average, 45-55 are average, 40-44 are lower than average and T-scores which are equal or smaller than 40 is much lower than average.
Beck et al. (2005) showed high internal consistency ranging from .86 to .96 across the age range from 7 to18 years for each scale. In addition, test-retest reliability was good and ranged from .74 to .93 when tested a week apart. The authors also reported that all BYI-II subscales had a significant correlation with Child Depression Inventory (CDI, Kovacs, 1992) ranging from .47 to .72; and correlated significantly with Piers –Harris Children’s Self
Concept Scale (Piers, Harris, & Herzberg, 1996) with a range of .37 to .67.
The Aggression Scale (Orpinas & Frankowski, 2001) was designed to measure symptoms of aggression in young adolescents. It consists of 11 items that describe different physical and verbal forms of aggressive behaviours.
Adolescents are asked to report on whether the behaviours occurred in the previous week; providing some indicator of current aggressive behaviour. The response for each item is based upon the frequency of such aggressive
behaviours which range from 0 times through 6 or more times, generating a possible score between 0 and 66. The authors of the scale report good internal consistency, (α > .87) and concurrent and construct validity with similar
measures. For example, positive associations were found between scores on the aggression scale and questions related to the frequency of injuries due to fights, weapon carrying, and alcohol use (Brener, Collins, Kann, Warren, &
Williams, 1995); mean aggression scores were positively correlated with alcohol drinking in adults and negatively correlated with parental monitoring and academic achievement. (see Appendix B1).
The Other as Shamer scale (OAS, Goss et al., 1994) is designed to measure external shame (how the person thinks that others view him/her).
Although it is originally used with university students, the researcher found that it can be adapted and applied to measure how the institutionalised children think that “the Other” views them. It is a self-report instrument with 18 items that require responses based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0
= never to 4 = almost always (generating a total score from 0 – 72). The scale has three dimensions: “inferiority”, “emptiness feelings”, and “how others behave when they see me make mistakes”. All inter-item correlations were positively significant at .05 level. All sub-scales were significantly and
positively correlated. In addition, the authors reported a significant positive correlation between the OAS and the Internalised Shame Scale (Cook, 1993) which was found to correlate with the all three factors of the OAS. (see Appendix B2)
The Stigma Scale (Austin et al., 2004) was originally developed as a self-report measure of perceived stigma among children with epilepsy and their parents. The item phrasing of the stigma scale related to secrecy/concealment and being different from others were similar constructs to what the children and carers reported in Chapter 4.The parent scale consists of 5 items that reflect parents’ perceptions of how others might view their child. The child scale consists of 8 items that reflect how he/she perceive how others’ view them due to their epilepsy condition. Both scales require responses based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5= strongly agree making a total score from 5-25 for parents and 8-40 for children. No
psychometric properties were reported for this scale. (see Appendix B3 and Appendix B4).
5.2.3 Procedures
The aim of the current study was to translate and adapt scales to use with children from Saudi Arabia (see Chapters 6 and 7). Two published questionnaires: BYI-II (Beck et al., 2005), the Aggression Scale (Orpinas &
Frankowski, 2001) were translated following the translation procedure outlined by Vallerand (1989). The Other as Shamer (OAS, Goss et al., 1994) and the Stigma Scale (Austin et al., 2004) were modified and adapted into Arabic to be administered to children in the Saudi culture.
5.2.3.1 Translating the Beck Youth Inventories-II (BYI-II) and the Aggression Scale
Vallerand’s method for translation is a complex, well-defined process that aims to ensure that the translated versions of the original measures are culturally valid and equivalent (Banville et al., 2000). Vallerand (1989)
suggested seven steps for the translation and adaptation of questionnaires.
The first three steps are concerned with the translation process itself; while the last four steps represent the necessary statistical procedures for assessing the validity and reliability of the translated version and establishing the norms.
1) Preparation of preliminary version: this step involves both forward