Korean journal of psychology:General (한국심리학회지ㆍ일반)

Korean Health Psychological Association (한국건강심리학회)
권호 표지

A Comprehensive approach for adapting psychological tests

심리검사 번안에 대한 통합적 접근

Son, Won-Suk
손원숙

  • Published : 2003.12.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

본 연구의 목적은 심리검사 번안 절차 시 연구자들이 고려해야 될 심리측정따적 사항을 종합적으로검토해 보고자 하는 것이다. 이를 위해서 우선 국제검사위원회에서 발표한 "검사번안 지침서" 를 소개하였고, 보다 타당하고 신뢰로운 검사 번안을 위해 사용할 수 있는 질적 및 양적인 절차들을 살펴보았다. 본 연구에서는 16PF 성격검사의 한글판과 영문판 검사간 점수 동둥섣(score equivalence)을평가하기 위하여 두 가지 절차를 적용해 보았다. 먼저, 문항 수준에서의 동둥성을 굉가하기 위하여차별기능문항기법 중 로지스틱 판별분석을 웅용하였고, 차별기능문항의 왼인을 탐색하기 위하여 문항평가질문지를 이웅한 질적인 분석을 시도하몄다. 마지막으로 우리 나라 실정에 적합한 심리검사번안절차와 검사 사용에 대한 지침서 개발의 필요성을 논의하였다

Keywords

References

  1. 김신영(1993). 문항편파성의 원인탐색 연구. 한국교육, 20, 199-213
  2. 김아영. 임은영 (2003). Effects of different types of practice in cross-cultural test adaptation of affective measures. Korean Journal of Psychology: General. 22(1), 89·113
  3. 염태호, 김정규 (1990). 성격요인검사: 실시요강과 해석방법. 서울: 한국심리적성연구소
  4. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
  5. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (1999). Identifying the causes of DIF in translated verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(3), 185-198 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00553.x
  6. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, I, 185-216
  7. Butcher, J. N. (1996). international Adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and Clinical Applications. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
  8. Casagrande, 1. B. (1954). The ends of translation. international Journal of American Linguistics, 20, 335-340 https://doi.org/10.1086/464296
  9. Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, H. E. (1995). Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16 PF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 926-937 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055006002
  10. Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 134-145 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.134
  11. Drasgow, F., & Probst, T. M. (2000). Evaluating measurement equivalence across languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum
  12. Drasgow, F., & Probst, T. M. (2000). Evaluating measurement equivalence across languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum
  13. Ellis, B. B., & Mead, A. D. (1998, August). An application of the DFIT framework to assess the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the i6PF questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Congress of Applied Psychology, San Francisco, CA
  14. Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (in press). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement
  15. Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. (1999, April). Using statistical and judgmental reviews to identify and interpret translation DIF. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Candada
  16. Hambleton, R. K (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 57-68
  17. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A Progress Report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244
  18. Hambleton, R. K, & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 147-157 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.11.3.147
  19. Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., & Komocar, J. (1982). Applications of item response theory to analysis of scale translations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 818-825 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.818
  20. Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., & Parson, C. K (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Honewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin
  21. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1986). PREUS 2: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientific software international
  22. Miller, T. R., & Spray, 1. A. (1993). Logistic discriminant function analysis for DIF identification of polytomously scored items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 107-122 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb01069.x
  23. Poortinga, Y. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259-282 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002187018003001
  24. Potenza, M. T., & Dorans, N. J. (1995) DIF assessment for polytomously scored items: a framework for classification and evaluation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 23-37 https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900104
  25. Reynolds, C. R., & Brown, R. T. (1984). Bias in mental testing: an introduction to the issues. In C. R. Reynolds & R. T. Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press
  26. Russell, M. & Karol, D. (1994) 16PF Fifth Edition: Administrators manual. Champaign, IL: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc
  27. Scheuneman, J. D. (1984). A theoretical framework for the exploration of causes and effects of bias in testing. Educational Psychologist. 19(4), 219-225
  28. Scheuneman, 1. D. (1987). An experimental, exploratory study of causes of bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(2), 97-118 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1987.tb00267.x
  29. Shaughenssy, M. F., & Kang, M. H. (1998). Personality profile of gifted children: The 16PF Fifth Edition A Comparative study of Korean and US Children. Unpublished manuscript
  30. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294572
  31. Sireci, S. G., Bastari, B., & Allalouf, A. (1998, August). Evaluating construct equivalence across adapted tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Franscisco, CA
  32. Sohn, W. (2002). Equivalence of Constructs Measured by Two Different Language Versions of 16PF. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 21(1), 91-116
  33. Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294821
  34. van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89
  35. van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (1997). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 263-279
  36. Werner, O., & Campbell, D. (1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll and R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. New York: American Museum of Natural History