Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels:: Results from the IQOLA project

The similarity in meaning assigned to response choice labels from the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) was evaluated across countries. Convenience samples of judges (range, 10 to 117; median = 48) from 13 countries rated translations of response choice labels, using a variation df the Thurstone method of equal appearing intervals. Judges marked a point on a 10-cm line representing the magnitude of a response choice label (e.g., "good" relative to the anchors of "poor" and "excellent"). Ratings were evaluated to determine the ordinal consistency of response choice labels within a response scale; the degree to which differences between adjacent response choice labels were equal interval; and the amount of variance due to response choice label, country, judge, and interaction between response choice label and country. Results confirmed the hypothesized ordering of response choice labels; the percentage of ordinal pairs ranged from 88.7% to 100% (median = 98.2%) across countries and response scales. Examination of the average magnitudes of response choice labels supported the "quasi-interval" nature of the scales. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results supported the generalizability of response choice magnitudes across countries; labels explained 64% to 77% of the variance in ratings, and country explained 1% to 3%. These results support the equivalence of SF-36 response choice labels across countries. Departures from the assumption of equal intervals, when observed; were similar across countries and were greatest for the two response scales that are recalibrated under standard SF-36 scoring. Results provide justification for scoring translations of individual items using standard SF-36 scoring; whether these items form the same scales in other countries as they do in the United States is evaluated with tests of scaling assumptions. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.