By Lotte Boven, Dries Verhelst (UA), Michiel van Harskamp, Marinthe Meijer & Nathan van Veelen (UU)
When we set out to translate the measurement instruments for ‘Action Competence’ (Sass et al., 2020) and ‘Action Orientation’ in teachers (Sass et al., 2024), we had a clear roadmap. We had the validated English originals, two teams of native Dutch-speaking researchers, and a standard back-translation protocol. We thought: One month, nine surveys, done.
The reality was far more “messy” than the textbooks suggest. This post reflects the collaborative experience of researchers from the University of Antwerp (Flanders, Belgium) and Utrecht University (the Netherlands). Here is what we learned when the theory of translation met the practice of cross-cultural adaptation.
Transitioning from Linear Translation to Harmonization
In a traditional setup, Team A translates to Dutch, and Team B translates back to English. But what happens when Team B—also experts in the field—disagrees with Team A’s initial Dutch choices?
We quickly realized that keeping the two translation teams in “silos” hindered the nuanced adaptation required for these constructs. Consequently, we shifted toward a harmonization approach (Cruchinho et al., 2024). This phase proved essential; by bringing both teams together to simultaneously compare the original, translated, and back-translated versions, we could critically evaluate each item. This collective approach allowed us to resolve linguistic ambiguities and conceptual discrepancies that a standard linear process would have overlooked. This was especially helpful since our translations needed to fit both the Flemish and the Dutch context.
The “Community” Conundrum
One of our most intense debates centered on a single word: Community. In English, “community” is a chameleon; it can refer to a physical location, a group of like-minded people, or those with shared interests.
In Dutch, there is no exact equivalent that captures all those layers simultaneously. For an item like “I am good at collaborating with people at my school to help my community,” we had to make a choice. Does “community” mean the people or the place? After much debate, we settled on “buurt” (neighborhood). While more place-bound, it provided the concrete anchor students needed to answer the question reliably. It’s a reminder that translating for research isn’t about finding a synonym; it’s about preserving the intent of the measurement.
Addressing Regional Linguistic Nuances
Perhaps our biggest surprise was that a “single” Dutch version wasn’t as straightforward as we hoped. Despite both being Dutch-speaking, the cultural nuances between Flanders (Belgium) and the Netherlands created some hurdles.
The most visible example? The word “teacher.” In the Netherlands, docent is the standard, while in Flanders, leerkracht is the go-to term. We eventually realized that to ensure the respondents felt “seen” and the instrument felt natural, we couldn’t choose just one. We ended up using the dual notation: docent (NL)/leerkracht (BE).
International Collaboration and Ethical Standards
Our work was situated within a broader international research effort, involving partner teams from Serbia, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Sweden. Judging by the challenges we already faced when translating the items into what could be seen as two versions of the same language (Flemish Dutch and the Netherlands Dutch), it should come as no surprise that translating to all of these seven project languages while maintaining continuity of content was an even bigger challenge. To manage the complexity of translating nine different instruments across multiple languages, we established a schedule of bi-monthly coordination meetings. These sessions served as a vital forum for discussing systemic translation challenges and ensuring that the underlying constructs remained consistent across all versions. If an issue came up in one country, and a solution was found, this often led to new translations being necessary in the four other languages. This way, we kept each other busy for a good while.
From One Month to Three: The Importance of Documentation
Our initial project plan estimated that the translation of all nine surveys would be completed within one month. However, as the complexities of harmonization and international coordination became apparent, the process had to be extended over three months.
This extension introduced a secondary challenge: maintaining consistency over time. We realized that the reasoning behind a decision made in the first month was not always easily recalled by the third. Splitting the work over this longer duration made it difficult to oversee the total process without a formal “paper trail.” In retrospect, a comprehensive harmonization report, detailing the motivation for specific word choices and providing strict linguistic guidelines, would have been a vital asset for maintaining continuity across the nine instruments.
Last in translation? Our advice
For researchers embarking on similar paths, our takeaway is simple: Build the “messiness” into your timeline. Prioritize collective harmonization over isolated back-translation, and document your linguistic rationale as rigorously as you do your statistical results. In the end, a measurement instrument is only as robust as the shared understanding behind the words.
If you are interested in the specific studies mentioned, you can find the original research here:
- Cruchinho et al. (2024) – Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments
- Sass et al. (2020) – Redefining action competence
- Sass et al. (2024) – Effectiveness of education for sustainability