Developing Instruments for Cross-Cultural Psychiatric Research

TLDR

The growth of cross‑cultural psychiatry coincides with a broader psychiatric emphasis on diagnostic precision and the use of quantitative, reliable data collection methods. The authors argue that cross‑cultural psychiatry must critically examine its instrument‑development methods. They outline a systematic approach for adapting instruments across cultures, describing five equivalence types—content, semantic, technical, criterion, and conceptual—to evaluate cross‑cultural validity. The paper demonstrates these equivalence concepts with examples drawn from research on internal migrants in Peru.

Abstract

The growth of cross-cultural psychiatry is now occurring at a time when psychiatry in general is emphasizing diagnostic clarity and the use of quantifiable and reliable methods of collecting clinical and research data. It is now imperative that cross-cultural psychiatry also examine its methods for developing instruments for use in cross-cultural research. This paper outlines a method for developing instruments designed in one culture for use in a second, and particular attention is given to cross-cultural validity or equivalence. Five types of equivalence are enumerated and defined: content, semantic, technical, criterion, and conceptual equivalence. These concepts are illustrated by examples from the authors' experience in research on internal migrants in Peru.