Give survey translation a clear owner
You’re about to send an AI adoption survey across language groups, and someone asks, "Will these answers mean the same thing?" Survey translation review should start before you approve the launch, with a named owner for resolving disagreements.
The University of Michigan’s undated SRO guidance recommends team translation, review, adjudication, pretesting and documentation. We think fluent wording is a useful starting point, but resolved meaning, not polished prose, should determine release.
The checklist below is our editorial application of broader survey guidance, not a mandatory employer standard. Start a review record for each language; completion means every issue has a documented decision.
Sources: 7. Instrument Development | SRO Best Practices
Preserve the question employees must answer
Dorothée Behr’s May 2023 GESIS guidance directs questionnaire translators and reviewers to examine ambiguity, omissions and changes in scope. Apply that review to AI terms in context, rather than approving a glossary alone.
For example, ask whether "regular use" still refers to work, whether "capability" describes perceived ability, and whether "concern" retains its intended subject. These are suggested review prompts, not validated questions. Complete this check when reviewers have resolved the following points.
Keep response choices distinct and aligned
Behr’s May 2023 GESIS guidance recommends preserving response-scale meaning, including endpoint strength, while documenting context-dependent trade-offs. The European Social Survey’s undated Round 11 checklist tells its translation teams to preserve category order and avoid overlapping categories.
Those ESS instructions apply to ESS teams; we suggest adapting them into the acceptance checks below. In our view, response choices deserve their own review because approving a question alone leaves the employee’s answer unresolved.
| Check | Review question | Complete when |
|---|---|---|
| Count and order | Are choices missing or reordered? | Choices match the intended source structure |
| Endpoint strength | Did the strongest answer become stronger? | Intensity is preserved or departures documented |
| Distinct meanings | Could two choices mean the same thing? | Categories remain distinguishable |
| Question fit | Do these options answer this question? | Wording and response task align |
Sources: https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/admin/Dateikatalog/pdf/guidelines/questionnaire_translation_behr_2023.pdf, https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/ESS_R11_Translation_Quality_Checklist.pdf
Test the version employees will see
The European Social Survey’s undated Round 11 checklist includes routing and answer-scale checks. For your employee web survey, inspect the rendered questionnaire and a test export; don’t automatically import ESS interviewer or show-card conventions.
Harkness, Dorer and Mohler’s 2016 Cross-Cultural Survey Guidelines distinguish translation review from question performance among target populations. Use the suggested checks below, then resolve material misunderstandings and retest changed wording before sign-off.
Sources: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/ESS_R11_Translation_Quality_Checklist.pdf, CCSG, 7. Instrument Development | SRO Best Practices
Approve the process before comparing teams
Record the approved version, reviewers, decisions, remaining issues and release date for each language. Survey translation sign-off establishes completion of your chosen review process. Completing this survey translation checklist doesn’t establish comparable scores or preserve a scale’s validation.
We’d investigate language-group differences before calling them adoption gaps.
Choose the adoption decision separately. AI Skills Distribution maps self-reported capabilities and willingness to help colleagues, while AI Adoption Barriers identifies obstacles and who can remove them. These reports don’t establish demonstrated competence or causal productivity gains.
Approve what you’ve reviewed. Investigate what you haven’t.
Sources: CCSG, AI Adoption Score
Frequently asked questions
Can people hold multiple review responsibilities?
Yes, as an editorial recommendation, a small organization can let people hold multiple responsibilities. Record which responsibilities each person covers and where additional help is needed. If nobody available can assess a language or the survey’s intended meaning, seek that expertise before approving the version rather than treating a filled role as sufficient.
How many employees should join a pretest?
Choose participants to cover the language and role differences you need to examine; this checklist sets no minimum sample size. As editorial guidance, prioritize relevant variation over an arbitrary headcount. Include employees who encounter different AI terminology or work contexts, and expand testing when their explanations reveal unresolved interpretations.
What should trigger another translation review?
We recommend reopening review when the source question, response scale, instructions or routing changes. Also revisit wording when employees raise a new interpretation problem. Keep a change log that identifies affected languages and checks, so the survey owner can decide which wording and routes need another employee pretest.
