1. Lipatova Anna Research Intern International Scientific-Educational Laboratory for Socio-Cultural Research HSE, Moscow, Russia

2. ◦ “Drop your trousers here for best results” (Dry cleaners in Bangkok) ◦ “Please do not feed the animals. If you have any suitable food, give it to the guard on duty” (Zoo in Budapest)

3.  Some general discussion of the problem  Interest grew up from specific example (specific method in specific country)  Mostly talk about content of the items and theoretical constructs  Draft of conclusions for now

4. Options that one can use to translate a measurement:  adoptation / literal translation  adaptation  assembly / development of new instrument Every option has its advantages and disadvantages Main question – what is the best choice in a specific case?

5. Fons J. R. van de Vijver:  Translating can be seen as finding an optimal mapping of text in two languages  Good mapping shows equivalence of the original text and translated one What is equivalence then?

6.  Construct equivalence  Cultural equivalence  Linguistic equivalence  Measurement equivalence In our example we moved from last to first

7.  EBQ (Everyday Behavior Questionnaire), author – Shalom S. Schwartz  Based on refined theory of basic human values (which distinguish 19 more narrowly defined values)  Schwartz’s refined theory of basic values assumes that values have a causal impact on behavior (all rights for this test belong to author)

8.  From original 130 items to 85  Has been assessed by 5 judges  Main question- whether respondents interpret the behaviors in it (and underlying values) in the way intended by the author

9.  Feel embarrassed when others praised me (Humility)  Spend time with my friends when they were down to try to cheer them up (Benevolence Caring)  Worry about my reputation (Face)  Visit people who were not my relatives in an old folks home or hospital (Universalism Concern)

10. Please estimate how often you engaged in each behavior during the past year relative to the number of times you had an opportunity to do it. Use the following scale:  0 – never  1 – rarely (about quarter of the times)  2 – sometimes (about half of the times)  3 – usually (more than half of the times)  4 – always If you never had even one opportunity to do something like this in the past year, put an X in front of the behavior

11.  We ran 3 pretests on small convenient samples  We used mix of methods: literal translation and adaptation  Problem – so called “non-working” items (when respondents used “no opportunity” answers)

12.  We had low reliabilities for some value concepts  Reliabilities of other-rated items were much lower than self-rated  Respondents were asking questions about the meaning of these items  “No opportunity” answer was used for different purposes

13.  We worked with items, but not the constructs  For some values it was hard to find good examples of behavior (e.g. SDA and SDT or TRA) due to cultural context Our colleagues in testing SVS questionnaire found that there is a discrepancy in understanding the content of values ​​by respondents and the author (Efremova, Panyusheva, 2012)

14.  Adapt a measurement from the “top” – is the meaning of theoretical constructs the same in two cultures?  Use cognitive interviewing or other qualitative methods before translating a measurement  Use language experts: mono- and bilingual  Consult (if possible) with author of theory/methodology  Make pretest(s), ask respondents about problems

15. Contact me by e-mail if needed alipatova@hse.ru