The exact documents your reviewers ask for

Every Equivalence project assembles these four artifacts as you work — each formatted, annotated, and citable, so they drop straight into a manuscript or supplement. Below is a worked sample from a mock English-to-Korean adaptation.

Each output is built to satisfy the Test Adaptation Reporting Standards (TARES).

See how these outputs actually look (PDF)Four APA-formatted A4 pages, one per output. The sample data is illustrative, not from a real study.

Content validity

Content validity index (CVI) summary

Quantitative evidence that your expert panel judged each item relevant, reported at the item level (I-CVI) and the scale level (S-CVI/Ave). Thresholds are applied automatically so weak items surface 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).

Manuscript-ready

Methods paragraph

A ready-to-paste account of your full procedure, written from what actually happened in your project. The in-text citations for your chosen framework are already in place.

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.

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.

Process transparency

Adaptation flowchart

An auditable diagram of every stage, showing how many items and people passed through each. It is the figure journals increasingly expect, exportable as SVG or PNG.

Figure 1. Flow of items through the cross-cultural adaptation.

12 source items entered
Original instrument
Forward translation
2 independent translators (blinded)
Reconciliation
1 reconciled version + rationale
Back-translation
Independent back-translator
Expert review
5 reviewers · 4-point CVI
Cognitive debriefing
8 participants · issues resolved
Final adapted version
12 items · signed off

Note. Counts at each stage are drawn from live project data and update automatically as work progresses. Forward translation and expert review were conducted under enforced blinding; all reconciliation and revision decisions were logged with rationale.

Tamper-evident

Equivalence audit certificate

A signed record of the finalized instrument, carrying a SHA-256 content hash so any reader can verify the exact version of record has not 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

Generate these for your own instrument

Start a project free. The outputs build themselves as you work.

Start free