Cultural adaptation and translation of measures: An integrated method
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.956
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.583
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Differences in the conceptualization and operationalization of health-related concepts may exist across cultures. Such differences underscore the importance of examining conceptual equivalence when adapting and translating instruments. In this article, we describe an integrated method for exploring conceptual equivalence within the process of adapting and translating measures. The integrated method involves five phases including selection of instruments for cultural adaptation and translation; assessment of conceptual equivalence, leading to the generation of a set of items deemed to be culturally and linguistically appropriate to assess the concept of interest in the target community; forward translation; back translation (optional); and pre-testing of the set of items. Strengths and limitations of the proposed integrated method are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Research in Nursing & Health
- Topic
- Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Field
- Nursing
- Canadian institutions
- Western UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Metropolitan UniversityResearch Canada
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsRyerson University
- Keywords
- OperationalizationConceptualizationEquivalence (formal languages)Adaptation (eye)Set (abstract data type)Conceptual frameworkTranslation (biology)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Dynamic and formal equivalencePsychologyNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSociologyEpistemologyLinguisticsMachine translationSocial science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes