PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The initial step in the development of translations of the University of Minnesota Press’s instruments is the identification of a Translation and Standardization Project Director, a researcher who will supervise the development of the translation and ultimately declare it ready for review and will supervise the collection of normative and clinical data. This person should be from the country or culture for which the translation is being developed and must be a credible authority in the area of personality assessment, diagnosis, and psychopathology, preferably a bilingual academic psychologist. They must be fluent in the target language and must be at least reasonably conversant with English. They should also be knowledgeable about the current English-language assessment literature and about issues and methods relating to translations of psychological tests.

Once the Project Director and team are established, they must submit to the University of Minnesota Press the Request for License to Translate form (below), providing information on all team members, including translators, data collectors, researchers, and so on. Please note: If there are any personnel changes to the translation team throughout the development process, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed.

The University of Minnesota Press and its consultants will review the proposal and provide comments and questions for the team. After all feedback has been addressed by the team, the project will be approved by the University of Minnesota Press. Once the translation agreement has been signed with the University of Minnesota Press, the team will have an online launch meeting with the Press and its consultants.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSLATION

The translation should be developed by a team of translators (no fewer than two) fluent in the target language and in English, and knowledgeable about the English-language MMPI literature and about issues and methods relating to the translation of psychological tests. The translators will independently translate the test items and then compare the results, negotiating differences in the translation of items to obtain the most equivalent item.

If the team is considering the use of AI during the translation development stage, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed. The team is required to provide all relevant information about platform security and CANNOT use AI to generate the initial translation. After generating their independent translations, the translators may use a secure AI tool for translation consultation, but it is expected that the bilingual experts (no fewer than two) will review any AI-generated translations and make the final determination for each translated item.

DEVELOPMENT OF A BACK-TRANSLATION

The translated items should then be back-translated into English by someone other than the translators to determine whether they are equivalent in meaning to the English-language original. Any substantive differences between an original and back-translated item should be considered by the translation team and revised as appropriate.

If the team is considering the use of AI during the back-translation development stage, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed. In addition to generating their own independent back-translation, the back-translators may use a secure AI tool for translation consultation, but it is expected that the team would make any final determination for each back-translated item prior to the translation and back-translation being provided to the University of Minnesota Press.

CONDUCTING A BILINGUAL TEST-RETEST STUDY

To evaluate the adequacy of the translation, the original English-language version and the translation should be administered to a minimum of 50 bilingual individuals who are fluent in both languages and familiar with both cultures. Each participant must take the test in both languages in two separate sessions, counterbalanced so that roughly half take the English-language version first and the remaining participants take the translated version first. Their responses should then be used to examine scale score differences and discrepancies at the item level. The baseline for evaluating differences should be the normative test-retest correlations reported in the U.S. test manual and supporting documents. If meaningful differences are identified for an item, the translation team should reexamine its translation and revise it accordingly.

Once this phase of development is complete, the team must submit a translation process report to the University of Minnesota Press, providing narrative about the results of the test-retest study, along with the complete translation for review.

EVALUATION BY THE LANGUAGE SERVICE COMPANY

The language service company employed by the University of Minnesota Press reviews the translation to determine whether each translated item is equivalent in meaning to the English-language original. In assessing equivalence, attention is paid to vocabulary, idiom, syntax, and tone. The review will also note any errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. The Press sends the company’s report to the translation team, with the requirement that they respond to every suggestion in the report, either accepting the suggested change or providing a reason for not doing so.

After the suggestions in the language service company’s report have been either incorporated into the translation or addressed with a response indicating why the team is not implementing the recommended change, it should be resubmitted to the University of Minnesota Press for final approval.

COLLECTION OF NORMATIVE AND CLINICAL DATA

A normative sample that includes at least 350 men and 350 women with valid protocols (see below for establishing protocol validity) demographically representative of the country of the target language is required. Larger samples are encouraged where possible. The normative sample is to represent the entire population; this means that individuals with psychopathology should not be excluded as they are part of the general population. In addition, for nongendered norms, it is important that the final number of men and women is equal. A clinical sample of 150 men and 150 women with valid MMPI protocols is also required. The clinical sample should include individuals with a range of diagnoses and will be used to determine the sensitivity of the translation to psychopathology by contrasting its MMPI scores with those of the normative sample.

The following steps should be taken to establish protocol validity for the normative sample once the normative dataset is available:

1. Remove any protocol with 15 or more unscorable responses.
2. Using the remaining participants, calculate raw score means and standard deviations for CRIN, VRIN, and TRIN and exclude any protocols with a raw score that is three standard deviations or greater than the mean on any of these scales.
3. Using the remaining participants, calculate raw score means and standard deviations for F and Fp and exclude any protocol with a raw score that is five standard deviations or greater than the mean on either of these scales.
4. The remaining participants will be used to develop standard T scores as described in the following section.

To establish protocol validity for the clinical sample, participants with a CNS > 14, or CRIN, VRIN, or TRIN > 79, or F or Fp score > 99 should be excluded. T scores should be calculated based on the final normative sample as described in the following section.

DEVELOPING STANDARD SCORES

Two types of T scores are used with the MMPI instruments—linear for the validity scales and uniform for the substantive scales. The same type of T score will be developed for the scales of translated instruments. Development of uniform T scores requires use of a software package provided by the University of Minnesota Press. The team must contact the Press when they are ready to develop T scores, and the necessary files will be shared.

PREPUBLICATION REPORT

A final report on Data Collection and Standardization of the Translation is to be submitted to the University of Minnesota Press before approval for publication is granted. This report will include a description of how the steps just outlined were implemented, descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, standard errors of measurement, a comparison of normative and clinical sample scores, and any validity findings, as well as scoring keys and T-score lookup tables for all scales.

If after reviewing the guidelines, the individual or institution determines they have the qualifications to pursue a license, a Request for License to Translate/Publish the MMPI form must be completed and submitted to testdiv@umn.edu.

REMINDER: If there are any personnel changes to the translation team throughout the development process, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The initial step in the development of translations of the University of Minnesota Press’s instruments is the identification of a Translation and Standardization Project Director, a researcher who will supervise the development of the translation and ultimately declare it ready for review and will supervise the collection of normative and clinical data. This person should be from the country or culture for which the translation is being developed and must be a credible authority in the area of personality assessment, diagnosis, and psychopathology, preferably a bilingual academic psychologist. They must be fluent in the target language and must be at least reasonably conversant with English. They should also be knowledgeable about the current English-language assessment literature and about issues and methods relating to translations of psychological tests.

Once the Project Director and team are established, they must submit to the University of Minnesota Press the Request for License to Translate and Publish the MPQ form (below), providing information on all team members, including translators, data collectors, researchers, and so on. Please note: If there are any personnel changes to the translation team throughout the development process, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed.

The University of Minnesota Press and its consultants will review the proposal and provide comments and questions for the team. After all feedback has been addressed by the team, the project will be approved by the University of Minnesota Press. Once the translation agreement has been signed with the University of Minnesota Press, the team will have an online launch meeting with the Press and its consultants.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSLATION

The translation should be developed by a team of translators (no fewer than two) fluent in the target language and in English, and knowledgeable about the English-language MPQ literature and about issues and methods relating to the translation of psychological tests. The translators will independently translate the items and then compare the results, negotiating differences in the translation of items to obtain the most equivalent item.

If the team is considering the use of AI during the translation development stage, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed. The team is required to provide all relevant information about platform security and CANNOT use AI to generate the initial translation. After generating their independent translations, the translators may use a secure AI tool for translation consultation, but it is expected that the bilingual experts (no fewer than two) will review any AI-generated translations and make the final determination for each translated item.

DEVELOPMENT OF A BACK-TRANSLATION

The translated items should then be back-translated into English by someone other than the translators to determine whether they are equivalent in meaning to the English-language original. Any substantive differences between an original and back-translated item should be considered by the translation team and revised as appropriate.

If the team is considering the use of AI during the back-translation development stage, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed. In addition to generating their own independent back-translation, the back-translators may use a secure AI tool for translation consultation, but it is expected that the team would make any final determination for each back-translated item prior to the translation and back-translation being provided to the University of Minnesota Press.

CONDUCTING A BILINGUAL TEST-RETEST STUDY

To evaluate the adequacy of the translation, the original English-language version and the translation should be administered to a minimum of 50 bilingual individuals who are fluent in both languages and familiar with both cultures. Each participant must take the test in both languages in two separate sessions, counterbalanced so that roughly half the participants take the English-language version first and the remaining participants take the translated version first. Their responses should then be used to examine scale score differences and discrepancies at the item level. The baseline for evaluating differences should be the normative test-retest correlations reported in the U.S. test manual and supporting documents. If meaningful differences are identified for an item, the translation team should reexamine its translation and revise it accordingly.

Once this phase of development is complete, the team must submit a translation process report to the University of Minnesota Press, providing narrative about the results of the test-retest study, along with the complete translation for review.

EVALUATION BY THE LANGUAGE SERVICE COMPANY

The language service company employed by the University of Minnesota Press reviews the translation to determine whether each translated item is equivalent in meaning to the English-language original. In assessing equivalence, attention is paid to vocabulary, idiom, syntax, and tone. The review will also note any errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. The Press sends the company’s report to the translation team, with the requirement that they respond to every suggestion in the report, either accepting the suggested change or providing a reason for not doing so.

After the suggestions in the language service company’s report have been incorporated into the translation or addressed with a response indicating why the team is not implementing the recommended change, it should be resubmitted to University of Minnesota Press for final approval.

COLLECTION OF NORMATIVE DATA

At a minimum, a valid normative sample that includes 350 men and 350 women demographically representative of the country of the target language is required. Larger samples are encouraged where possible. The normative sample is to represent the entire population; this means that individuals with psychopathology should not be excluded as they are part of the general population. In addition, for nongendered norms, it is important that the final distribution of men and women is either equal or perfectly representative of the gender distribution of the general population.

SCALES THAT MAY REQUIRE ADAPTATION

Some MPQ scales may require adaptation from their original form in the English-language versions developed for use in the United States. This is most common for the validity scales, but other scales that refer to culturally normative attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Traditionalism) might require adaptation as well. Such adaptation could be slight changes to item content and/or scoring of the scales.

As a first step, the distribution of scale scores on the response inconsistency scales for participants comprising the normative sample should be examined and outliers (typically < 3 SD above the normative mean) removed from the sample. When outliers have been removed, item endorsement frequencies of the Unlikely Virtues scale items should be examined to determine that these they are indeed “unlikely” to be endorsed (i.e., < 50%, though a lower threshold might be used) and items that do not meet the requirements used to assign them should be deleted and, if possible, replaced with appropriate/properly functioning items. The content should also be considered in the cultural context with respect to what would be considered virtuous responding, and items that do not meet this requirement should be considered for removal and/or replacement. Consultation with the University of Minnesota Press consultants on final decisions about the UV scale composition is strongly recommended.

DEVELOPING STANDARD SCORES

Two types of T scores are used with the MPQ—linear and normalized. The same type of T score should be developed for the scales of translated instruments. Linear T scores could be appropriate if the MPQ scale distributions are clearly normal based on both normality statistics and visual inspection of histograms, and the use of linear T scores captures the full interpretation range (less than 30T through greater than 70T) for all scales. Otherwise, a normalization procedure (preferably using IRT per the MPQ Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation) should be used. It is recommended that the University of Minnesota Press is consulted about the most appropriate approach.

PREPUBLICATION REPORT

A final report on Data Collection and Standardization of the Translation is to be submitted to the University of Minnesota Press before approval for publication is granted. This report will include a description of how the steps just outlined were implemented, descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, standard errors of measurement, and validity findings, as well as scoring keys and T-score lookup tables for all scales scored on the English-language version of the instrument.

If after reviewing the guidelines, the individual or institution determines they have the qualifications to pursue a license, a Request for License to Translate/Publish the MPQ form must be completed and submitted to testdiv@umn.edu.

REMINDER: If there are any personnel changes to the translation team throughout the development process, the University of Minnesota Press must be informed.