See Outputs after using Equivalence

Compare reports for a one-measure English-to-Spanish project and a three-measure English-to-Korean project, using published measures with illustrative project records.

English–Spanish · one measure English–Korean · three measures

APA 7–formatted A4 reports with measure-specific instructions and response options. The examples illustrate documentation relevant to the Test Adaptation Reporting Standards (TARES); project activity is illustrative.

Content validity

Content validity index (CVI) summary

A summary of expert relevance ratings at the item level (I-CVI) and scale level (S-CVI/Ave). Equivalence applies the selected thresholds and flags items that may need revision before sign-off.

Table 1. Item- and scale-level content validity indices.

Item	Experts rating 3–4	I-CVI	Interpretation
Item 1	6 / 6	1.00	Acceptable
Item 2	5 / 6	0.83	Acceptable
Item 3	6 / 6	1.00	Acceptable
Item 4	5 / 6	0.83	Acceptable
Item 5	6 / 6	1.00	Acceptable
Item 6	6 / 6	1.00	Acceptable
S-CVI/Ave (scale-level)		0.94 (excellent, ≥ 0.90)

Note. N = 6 expert reviewers. I-CVI = item-level content validity index, the proportion of experts rating an item 3 or 4 for relevance on a 4-point scale; S-CVI/Ave = scale-level CVI, the mean of the I-CVIs. I-CVI ≥ .78 and S-CVI/Ave ≥ .90 are treated as acceptable. Computed per Lynn (1986) and Polit and Beck (2006).

Methods reporting

Methods paragraph

A draft account of the procedure based on the project record. It includes citations for the selected framework and should be edited to match your study and writing style.

Publication-ready draft

Copy this paragraph, then edit it to match the completed study and journal style.

The instrument was cross-culturally adapted from English to Korean following the guidelines of Beaton et al. (2000). Two independent bilingual translators produced forward translations, which were reconciled into a single version by the project lead with documented rationale. An independent back-translation was then reviewed for conceptual equivalence. A panel of five content experts rated each item for relevance on a 4-point scale; the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was .94, exceeding the recommended threshold of .90 (Polit & Beck, 2006). Finally, cognitive debriefing with eight members of the target population confirmed comprehension, and the 12-item adapted version was finalized and signed off as the version of record. The adaptation workflow and versioned project record were managed in Equivalence (Mendoza, 2026). Reporting of the adaptation workflow followed the Test Adaptation Reporting Standards (TARES; Iliescu et al., 2024).

In-text citations adapt to your framework, whether Beaton et al. (2000), Harkness (2003) for TRAPD, the ITC Guidelines (2018), or McKenna and Doward (2005). Hybrid procedures are cited in combination.

Iliescu, D., Bartram, D., Zeinoun, P., Ziegler, M., Elosua, P., Sireci, S., Geisinger, K. F., Odendaal, A., Oliveri, M. E., Twing, J., & Camara, W. (2024). The Test Adaptation Reporting Standards (TARES): Reporting test adaptations. International Journal of Testing, 24(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2023.2294266

Mendoza, N. (2026). Equivalence (Version 0.4.0) [Web application]. https://useequivalence.com

Process transparency

Equivalence Adaptation Workflow

A diagram of the stages completed in the project, including item and participant counts. Export it as SVG or PNG, then adapt the caption and formatting for your target journal.

Figure 1. Equivalence Adaptation Workflow.

Register
Source measure recorded
12 items + measure instructions and response options
Adaptation
Forward translation and reconciliation
2 blinded translators · 1 reconciled version with rationale
Framework-selected verification
Back-translation
Used in this example; not required by every framework
Validation
Expert review and cognitive debriefing
5 reviewers · 8 participants · revisions documented
Output
Final adapted version and report
12 items · methods, tables, flow figure, and audit record

Note. Counts at each stage are drawn from live project data and update automatically as work progresses. Verification stages are determined by the selected framework; back-translation is shown here because it was used in this example. All reconciliation and revision decisions were logged with rationale.

Tamper-evident

Equivalence audit certificate

A record of the completed process and final instrument. Its SHA-256 content hash can be used to check whether the version of record has changed since sign-off.

Certificate of Adaptation

Instrument: Sample Wellbeing Scale (12 items)
Adaptation: English → Korean
Framework: Beaton / ISPOR
Signed off: 3 June 2026

SHA-256 content hash

e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855

Prepare these materials for your own study

Your first project is on us. The outputs update as your team records its work.

Start your first project