ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

International translation verifiersThe IEA Secretariat enlisted the assistance of an independent translation company, cApStAnLinguistic Quality Control (Brussels, Belgium), to verify the translations for each country.International translation verifiers for ICCS were required to have the target language as theirfirst language, have formal credentials as translators working in English, be educated at universitylevel and, if possible, live and work in the target country (or be in close contact with it).Verifiers attended a training seminar where they received detailed instructions for reviewing thesurvey instruments and registering deviations from the international version. They also receivedgeneral information about the study and design of the instruments, together with a descriptionof the translation procedures used by the national centers.International translation verificationThe primary task of the translation verifiers was to evaluate the accuracy and comparability ofthe national versions of ICCS instruments. The instructions given to verifiers emphasized theimportance of maintaining the meaning and difficulty level of each test and questionnaire item.Specifically, verifiers had to ensure the following:• The translation had not affected the meaning or reading level of the text;• No information had been omitted from or added to the translated text;• The test items had not been made easier or more difficult;• The instruments contained all of the correct items and response options, in the same orderas in the international version;• All national adaptations implemented in the instruments were documented in the NAF.The verifiers used the editing functions of Microsoft® Word (“Track Changes” and “InsertComments”) to document any errors or suggested changes directly in the submitted instruments.Verifiers were asked to provide suggestions that would improve the comparability of theinstruments when appropriate, and to evaluate the overall quality, accuracy, and culturalrelevance of the translation.To help NRCs understand the comparability of the translated text with the internationalversion, verifiers were asked to assign a “severity code” to any deviations. The severity codeindicated how major or minor the deviation was. Severity codes ranged from 1 (major change orerror) to 4 (acceptable change), as described below.1. Major change or error: examples included the incorrect order of choices in a multiple-choiceitem; incorrect order of items; omission of a graphic, item, or answer option; incorrecttranslation resulting in the answer being suggested by the question; and an incorrecttranslation that changed the meaning or difficulty level of an item.2. Minor change or error: examples included spelling errors that did not affect comprehension.3. Suggestion for alternative: the translation was deemed adequate, but the verifier suggested adifferent wording.4. Acceptable change: the change was deemed acceptable and appropriate, but was notnecessarily documented in the NAF. An example of an acceptable adaptation is the casewhere a reference to winter was changed from January to July in the instruments forparticipating countries from the Southern Hemisphere.Additionally, for countries that participated in CIVED, verifiers were required to comparethe translation of items as administered in CIVED against the translation used for ICCS. Anydiscrepancies were documented in a special form.56 ICCS 2009 technical report