Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Japanese translation of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing
(USC Thesis Other)
Japanese translation of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313,761-4700 800/521-0600 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. JAPANESE TRANSLATION OF THE EVALUATION OF SENSORY PROCESSING by TOMOHIRO TAKAHASHI A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (Occupational Science) December 1998 Copyright 1998 TOMOHIRO TAKAHASHI R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 1394769 UMI Microform 1394769 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UNIV ERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PA R K L O S A N G ELES. CALIFORNIA. 8 0 0 0 7 This thesis, •written by ____________TOMOHIRO TAKAHASHI_________ under the direction of h Thesis Committee, and approved by all its members, has been pre sented to and accepted by the Dean of The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the requirements fo r the degree of MASTER OF ART D/z /a Novem ber 2 3 ,1 9 9 8 THESIS COMMITTEE R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to show my appreciation to my thesis committee members; Dr. L. Diane Parham, Dr. Florence Clark, and Dr. Ruth Zemke, whose knowledge and great insight regarding Occupational Science and Therapy are derived to finish this thesis. Specifically, I appreciate to have this great opportunity to work with Dr. L. Diane Parham. I sincerely look forward to having another opportunity to study together. I would also like to express my appreciation to all the participating children, parents, and my trusted translators and editors; Phil Waters, Eri Donovan, Yuki Matsushita, Akemi Takagi, Caroline Cook, and Arlyn and Kathy Briggs. With their help and their precious time spent with me, I am able to finish my thesis. Lastly, I would like to show great thanks to my wife, Ikuyo and my daughters, Nanae and Marie. The completion of this thesis could not be conceived without their support as a family. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. T A B L E O F CO N TEN TS A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ........................................................................................ H L IS T O F T A B L E ......................................................................................................... v A B S T R A C T ................................................................................................................—vi C H A P T E R I T H E PR O B L E M ............................................................................1 Rationale and Significance of the Study .............................................. 1 Research Approach ........................................................................3 Assumptions .......................................................................... 3 Limitations ................................................................................4 C H A P T E R II L ITE R A T U R E REV IEW ............................................................ 5 Sensory Integration Problems in Children ..........................................5 Types of sensory integration problems .................................... 5 Clinical Evaluation of Sensory Integration ..............................7 Development of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) ..................8 Literature Review of Translation for Cross Cultural Study ................... 11 Back Translation ........................................................ 12 Committee Approach .................................................. 13 Bilingual Technique .....................................................14 Pretest Method .............................................................. 16 C H A P T E R m M ETH O D S ................................................................................18 Instrum ent ........................................................................18 Procedures ..........................................................................18 Qualifications of Translators ........................................................18 Translation Procedures ...................................................... 19 Translation from English into Japanese .................................. 20 The translation committee ..........................................20 Back-translation from Japanese into English .............................. 21 The back translation committee meeting .......................21 Comparison between the back-translated and original ESP..........21 The Equivalency Criteria ............................................... 22 Vocabulary equivalence ......................................... 22 Idiomatic equivalence ......................................... 22 Grammatical-syntactical equivalence ....................... 22 Conceptual equivalence ...................................... 23 Field Test and Interview of the Participants ........................ 23 Field testing procedure ...................................................24 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IV CH A PTER IV RESULTS ................................................................................................25 Translation (Original ESP into Japanese) .............................................. 25 Back-translation (JESP Draft into English) ............................................ 27 The First Equivalency Committee .......................................................... 29 Second Translation (Original ESP into Japanese) ...................................33 Second Back-translation (Second JESP Draft into English) .................. 35 The Second Equivalency Committee ....................................................... 35 Third Back-translation (JESP Draft into English) ...................................36 Field-Test ................................................................................................ 36 CH A PTER V D ISC U SSIO N ....................................................................................................39 Language Characteristic of Japanese and Indicated Problems ............. 39 The frequent use of passive form in Japanese ........................... 41 The preferred usage of humble expression in Japanese ............ 42 Other Japanese features of influencing on translation .............. 42 For the Future Study ...............................................................................45 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 49 APPENDICES Appendix A The Evaluation for Sensory Processing ................................................ 52 Appendix B The Japanese Version of the Evaluation for Sensory Processing ....... 61 Appendix C Informed Consent for Interview of Field-Testing ...............................73 Appendix D Comprehensive Results of Japanese and Back-translation Process ....78 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. V LISTS OF TABLES • Back-translation. Requirements.....................................................................................30 • Number of Sensory System Errors in the First Back-translation ...............................31 FIGURE 1 Process of Translation .........................................................................19 FIGURE 2 Process of Translation for the Future Study ...........................................................47 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ABSTRACT JAPANESE TRANSLATION OF THE EVALUATION OF SENSORY PROCESSING The purpose of this study was to generate a translation of the Evaluation for Sensory Processing (ESP) for use in Japan by using three translation methods, the back translation, the committee approach, and the pretest method. The ESP is a parent questionnaire developed by students and faculty at the University of Southern California to identify child behaviors that indicate difficulties in sensory processing. In this study, two translators translated the ESP into Japanese, then the Japanese draft was back-translated into English by two back-translators. The English back-translation was repeatedly compared with the original ESP until the two English versions were judged to be equivalent The final version of the Japanese ESP was field-tested with five parents. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Rationale and Significance of the Study la recent years, childhood disorders such as autism and some types of learning disability have been viewed as originating in nervous system dysfunction (Brumback and Weinberg, 1990; Ciesielski, Harris, Hart, and Pabst, 1997; Courchesne, 1997; Hynd, Semrud-Clikeman and Lyytinen, 1991; Kemper and Bauman, 1993; Lotspeich and Ciaranello, 1993; Matsuda, Wen, Morita, Otsuka and Igase, 1996; Rapin, 1997; Weiss and Hechtman, 1993; Wen, Matsuda, Yoshimura, Kawabe and Sakanaka, 1995). For many children, these disorders are thought to involve processing of sensory information. Sensory integration theory was developed by Jean Ayres (1972) to provide a conceptual framework for intervention to help such children with sensory processing problems. According to this theory, people initially receive information about their environment through their sensory receptor organs. The received sensory information is then forwarded to the central nervous system. The central nervous system then organizes the information from various sensory modalities. This process of sensory integration enables people to make increasingly more complex adaptive responses to environmental stimuli, thus it influences functional behavior patterns. However, if sensory processing problems are present, behavioral responses to ordinary events may be affected. The unusual behaviors of some children with a learning disability or autism may be manifestations of sensory processing problems. Because many sensory related behavior problems arise in the home, parents often can supply clinicians with information regarding whether sensory-based behavior problems are present in their children. In the sensory integration treatment approach, a sensory integration problem may be diagnosed using a standardized test, the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SEPT) (Ayres, 1989). Use of the SIPT enables therapists to evaluate children’s problems very R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 precisely and create more specific problem-oriented treatment plans. However some children whose behavior problems are severe may not be able to participate in a lengthy standardized test format. In addition, standardized testing does not directly assess the child’s spontaneous behavior in everyday situations. Thus, parent interviews and questionnaires are often recommended to supplement or take the place of standardized testing in a clinical evaluation of sensory integration (Parham and Mailloux, 1996). The Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) is a questionnaire that is currently being developed as a clinical tool for identifying sensory processing problems in children. The ESP consists of a series of questions that relate children’s everyday behaviors to six sensory modalities: auditory, olfactory/gustatory, proprioceptive, tactile, vestibular, and visual. Work on the ESP was initiated in a Master’s thesis by Jane LaCroix (1993) at the University of Southern California. In this first study, LaCroix gathered items from existing, unpublished sensory history questionnaires, and generated a few additional items from the sensory integration literature. She then conducted a rigorous content validity study on the 679 items she had assembled. As a result of this study, 200 items were retained as having good content validity. A second Master’s thesis conducted by Cheryl Johnson (1996) examined construct validity of these 200 items through a comparison of ESP data on children with and without sensory integrative dysfunction. This study found that 84 ESP items significantly discriminated between the two groups of children. Recently, a pilot study involving children with autism has indicated that some of the ESP items are likely to be sensitive to the sensory processing problems of these children (Parham, LaCroix, Johnson, Mailloux, and Roley, 1997). Internal consistency of the ESP using Johnson’s (1996) data indicates generally high, reliability for this tool (Parham, LaCroix, Johnson, Mailloux, and Roley, 1997). Thus, the ESP is a promising instrument for clinical evaluation of children with sensory integrative disorders. All research conducted on the ESP has so far involved only American children. However, there is a need for an instrument such as the ESP in Japan. Currently, no parent R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 questionnaires assessing sensory processing are available in Japan that have been evaluated for validity and reliability. Research Approach In this research study, the current version of the ESP (Research Version 3) was utilized and translated into Japanese by using a combination of three translation techniques: back-translation, committee approach, and pretest method (Brislin, 1970). Four bilingual people were employed, two translating from the original (English) to the target language (Japanese), then another two blindly translating the Japanese version back to English. After completing these processes, the investigator had two versions in English, the original ESP and the back-translated version of the ESP. Next, any items that differed in meaning between the two English versions, as judged by two ESP American researchers, were identified and a new translation of these items into Japanese was generated. The back- translation technique was repeated until all JESP items were judged to be functionally equivalent with the English ESP versions. As a part of this process, the subtle differences in meanings of questionnaire items based on cultural differences were discussed and items were revised accordingly (Phillips, 1994). Details will be explained in the chapter IV. As a final step of this study, a field test involving data collection from Japanese parents using the final version of the JESP was conducted as the pretest method. Parents were asked to complete the JESP and were interviewed to ensure that items were clear. Interview data were used to make final adjustments in wording of items. Assumptions 1. A child’s behavior reflects sensory processing. 2. If children have problems in their sensory processing, their behavior is influenced by these problems. 3. It is possible to develop a version of the ESP that is culturally appropriate for Japanese parents. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 Limitations 1. Although the procedures are conducted to minimize how cultural differences affect the meaning of ESP and JESP items, perfect functional equivalence is not necessarily possible for all items. 2. The pilot study is limited to a very small group of parents selected for convenience. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 CHAPTER n LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, literature regarding the development of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) is reviewed. The ESP is based on the sensory integration theory developed by A. Jean Ayres (1972), therefore sensory integration theory will be briefly introduced. Moreover, the main purpose of this study is to translate the ESP into Japanese. In order to plan this translation process successfully, the literature on translation of tests and questionnaires is also reviewed. Sensory Integration Problems in Children In her last published definition of sensory integration, Ayres explains sensory integration with simply chosen words: Sensory integration is the neurological process that organizes sensation from one's own body and from the environment and makes it possible to use the body effectively within the environment The spatial and temporal aspects of inputs from different sensory modalities are interpreted, associated, and unified. Sensory integration is information processing. The brain must select, enhance, inhibit compare, and associate the sensory information in a flexible, constantly changing pattern; in other words, the brain must integrate it. (1989, p.l 1) Types of Sensory Integration Problems Ayres was convinced that children with some types of learning disability or autism had problems with sensory integrative functions of the brain. Categorization of types of sensory integrative dysfunction is not consistent from one expert to another. However, certain types of sensory integrative dysfunction can be generally categorized into four domains: problems with sensory modulation, problems with sensory discrimination and perception, vestibular processing disorders, and dyspraxia (Parham and Mailloux, 1996). Modulation refers to the central nervous system’s capacity to regulate its own activities (Ayres, 1979). Sensory modulation problems may be conceptualized as falling on a sensory responsivity continuum from hyporesponsivity to hyperresponsivity. On one R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 hand, an individual who tends to under-respond to sensory stimulation may have difficulty paying attention to, or registering sensory input (Parham and Mailloux, 1996). For example, if a child with hypo-responsivity receives a tactile stimulus that for most children evokes pain, this child might show a very weak orientation to the stimulus, or may not even perceive it. On the other hand, an individual who tends to react to sensory stimulation with hyper-responsivity may strongly reject or avoid exposure to certain sensory input. For example, the person with hyperresponsivity may tend to experience ordinary tactile stimulation as irritating or painful. This condition is termed “sensory defensiveness.” Sensory discrimination and perception make it possible to organize and interpret sensory stimuli to a very refined degree (Parham and Mailloux, 1996). Sometimes, children who have sensory integrative problems show insufficient ability to discriminate between different given sensory stimuli. For example, they may have difficulty differentiating one tactile stimulus from another or identifying the place where a tactile stimulus has been applied. These children do not have peripheral sensory problems, but rather these problems are thought to stem from central nervous system difficulties in organizing the topological relationships among various stimuli, including those arising from body parts. Vestibular processing disorders are thought to be caused by inefficiency in central vestibular processing. Typically, a child with this problem has poor equilibrium functions and may have low tone in extensor muscles, which are needed for maintaining an upright posture and for head righting. Also, some children may have difficulty in adjusting their head position appropriate to gravitational forces. According to Ayres (1979), praxis is the ability to conceptualize, plan, and execute a nonhabitual motor act. Dyspraxia refers to difficulty with praxis, despite the absence of a specific movement disorder. Usually, the child with dyspraxia appears clumsy due to poor motor planning, and has great difficulty performing new motor tasks. Developmental R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 dyspraxia is hypothesized to be the result of impaired tactile and proprioceptive processing (Cermak, 1991). Clinical Evaluation of Sensory Integration Although sensory integration disorders are thought to be manifestations of irregularities in central nervous system functioning, the specific cause is unknown. Current research indicates a possibility that neurological problems in the brain are involved in childhood learning disorders, such as those associated with sensory integration disorders (Brumback and Weinberg, 1990; Ciesielski, 1997; Courchesne, 1997; Hynd, Clikeman and Lyytinen, 1991; Kemper and Bauman, 1993; Lotspeich and Ciaranello, 1993; Matsuda, Wen, Morita, Otsuka and Igase, 1996; Rapin, 1997; Weiss and Hechtman, 1993; Wen, Matsuda, Yoshimura, Kawabe and Sakanaka, 1995). Nevertheless, none of these studies have identified a specific neurological cause for these conditions. Rather than evaluating the putative neurological factors, therapists evaluate sensory integration problems through deliberate observation of children's behavior. Ayres developed a standardized test battery, originally named the Southern California Sensory Integration Tests (SCSIT) (Ayres, 1972c), to identify sensory integration problems in children. These tests were later revised and named the Sensory Integration Praxis Tests (SEPT) (Ayres, 1989). The SEPT measures a child’s performance in visual perception, tactile-kinesthetic perception, and perceptual-motor function. Both the SCSIT and the SEPT are utilized by occupational therapists, schoolteachers and other health professionals in Japan. The SCSIT was translated into Japanese, but the SEPT was not. If the SEPT is to be used, the test score sheets must be sent to the United States for computer scoring, otherwise, the occupational therapist must buy the software for scoring. In addition to being inconvenient, there are more than a few critical comments towards the test battery because of the difficulty of mastering the execution of its tests (Sugihara, 1995). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 Another criticism, of the standardized sensory integration tests is that the obtained results may not be directly related to children’s everyday lives. Therefore, a device that evaluates children’s problematic behaviors in daily life, and allows the therapist to make inferences about whether the child may have a sensory integration disorder, is strongly recommended for clinical assessment. Sensory history questionnaires, such as the Evaluation of Sensory Processing, is such a device (Cronin, 1996). Development of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) In this study, the ESP Research Version 3 was translated into Japanese by using the back-translation technique. Before proceeding to the explanation regarding the translation process of the ESP, some introduction to its development is warranted. The ESP began as a compilation of existing, unpublished sensory history questionnaires. Sensory questionnaires were developed as clinical assessment tools that reflect sensory integration theory proposed by A. Jean Ayres. LaCroix (1993) indicated in her search of sensory history literature, that 15 different versions by different authors were found. Sensory history questionnaires assess children’s problematic behaviors that are believed to reflect the sensory processing dysfunction. Sensory history questionnaires have been highly valued and utilized as a part of occupational therapy evaluation by therapists (Parham, LaCroix, Johnson, Mailloux, and Roley, 1997). The purpose of such instruments is “to gather valuable information on how children respond to sensory information in the home or natural environments” (LaCroix, Johnson, and Parham, 1997, p. 3). The ESP is completed by the main caretaker of a child, the person who knows the child’s everyday life in detail. Thus responses on the ESP reflect the child’s behavior under natural conditions, as perceived by the adult caretaker. ESP test items are organized into six sensory systems: auditory, olfactory/ gustatory, proprioceptive, tactile, vestibular, and visual systems. The information about sensory processing that is obtained by the ESP may assist in interpreting the scores of standardized tests. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 In the last few years, several students and faculty at the University of Southern California have been developing the ESP to meet psychometric standards. Benson and Clark (1982) described a general step-by-step process involved in planning, constructing, and validating a new instrument. Their outline of the instrument development process was used to guide development of the ESP. The development of the ESP was initiated, accordingly, by gathering existing sensory history questionnaires and generating new items based on a review of the literature on sensory processing (LaCroix, 1993). In addition, experienced occupational therapists and parents who had children with sensory integration dysfunction were asked to contribute items that they thought would be valuable on a sensory history questionnaire. A total of 679 items were compiled through this process. In order to construct the instrument, the objectives of the instrument and the content domains to be assessed were specified, as follows (LaCroix, Johnson and Parham, 1997): 1. The instrument should be comprised of items that assess problems in sensory processing. 2. Items should be grouped according to the different sensory systems they primarily represent. Originally, items were grouped into seven sensory systems: auditory, gustatory, olfactory, proprioceptive, tactile, vestibular, and visual systems. 3. Items should focus on behavior that occurs in the context of daily life occupations to reflect the experiences of parents and children in naturally occurring situations. The next step in the test development process was content validation. For the pilot instrument, the goal of 200 items with good content validity was set, with a final goal of 100 items in the finished ESP. This was examined using twenty-one experts in the field of sensory integration. Each expert was provided only a portion of the 679 items for rating. Each expert was required to answer the following questions: “How much is the item related to each of the seven sensory systems?”; “To which one of the seven sensory systems do you believe the item is most related (primary system)?” and “Do you believe the item R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 0 offers valuable information to the sensory processing portion of a sensory history questionnaire (good item)?” Each expert independently rated the relationship between each sensory system and each test item using a 3-point scale (-1 = not a measure of the domain. 0 = undecided as to whether the item measures the domain, +1 = a definite measure of the domain) (cite LaCroix 1993). The index of item-objective congruence (Rovinelli and Hambleton, 1977) was calculated for each item, indicating the extent to which each item related to a particular sensory system. After going through this statistical analysis, 191 items were identified as having high content validity. Because 200 test items were desired for the pilot instrument, and few gustatory items demonstrated strong content validity, 9 gustatory items with moderate content validity were added to this pilot instrument. The pilot instrument, then, was composed of 200 items classified into the seven sensory systems: 32 auditory, 10 gustatory, 12 olfactory, 28 proprioceptive, 60 tactile, 36 vestibular, and 22 visual items (LaCroix, Johnson, and Parham, 1997). Next, a pilot study next was undertaken using the pilot instrument. It was distributed to 250 families of typically developing preschoolers, and 37 completed questionnaires were obtained. Analysis of the responses indicated that 116 items on the ESP were rated “ rarely” or “ never,” indicating that these items reflect behaviors that are uncommon for typically developing children (LaCroix, Johnson, and Parham, 1997). As the next step in developing the ESP, a qualitative study was undertaken to make sure that parents interpret each item appropriately (Johnson, 1996). Each item was reviewed by five parents, four of whom had children with sensory integration dysfunction and one whose child had no sensory integration dysfunction. These parents verbally explained to the interviewer the contents of each item. Using the comments that were made by these parents, 41 questions were improved and 8 questions were discarded. This version of the ESP was called “Research Version 2.” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 11 Item analysis was next executed to determine whether the ESP discriminates between different groups. Using the Research Version 2 of the ESP, data were collected for 59 children without disorders and 30 children with sensory integrative disorders. Of the 59 children without sensory integration disorders, 30 children were matched for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status with the children with sensory integration disorders. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed on all 200 items, and 84 items indicated a significant difference (p< .05) between the matched groups (Johnson, 1996). This result indicates that nearly half of the pilot ESP items are sensitive to differences in sensory processing between children with and without sensory integrative dysfunction. Parham, LaCroix, Johnson, Mailloux, and Roley (1997) examined the internal consistency of ESP items (Version 2) using the data from the Johnson (1996) study. Cronbach’s alpha was computed to estimate the internal consistency of items within each sensory system. All alphas were acceptable except the gustatory and olfactory systems (gustatory: .32, olfactory: .76). When items from these two sensory systems were eliminated, alpha was computed for the rest of the sensory systems, yielding a coefficient of .97 (Parham, LaCroix, Johnson, Mailloux, and Roley, 1997). The English ESP appears to have promising reliability and validity in American culture. Unfortunately, despite the need, there is no such instrument in Japan. Because the proposed study has involved the development of the Japanese ESP (JESP), a cross-cultural method focusing on translation will be reviewed in the next section. Literature Review of Translation for Cross Cultural Study In the preceding section of this paper, the validity of the ESP in detecting sensory processing problems of children was discussed, and it was suggested that the ESP has promising reliability and validity in American culture. In this study, the ESP has been translated into Japanese and the translated Japanese version is expected to capture the same sensory integrative functions as the original version. In order to achieve this goal, the back- translation technique was used, which will be explained in the following section. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 12 The Back-translation After the Second World War, interest in the relationship between culture and behavior rapidly increased (Jahoda, 1992). In many disciplines, the necessity and importance of cross-cultural research came to be recognized with the development of international relationships. According to Brislin (1973), one of the pioneers of cross- cultural research, cross-cultural research was mainly concerned with behavior that was influenced by living in a given country, culture, or environment Brislin (1973) further explained that the objective of this type of research was to make comparisons of behavior between cultures. Therefore, researchers who wish to make such comparisons of behavior must be equipped with useful tools for figuring out the differences. Brislin (1970) established the back-translation technique for cross-cultural study. This well-established translation method is widely accepted in contemporary cross-cultural research (e.g., McDermott and Palchanes, 1992; Mumford, Tareen, Bajwa, Bhatti, and Karim, 1991; Munet-Vilaro and Egan, 1990; Pandey, Mandal, Taylor, and Parker, 1996). Back-translation begins with obtaining translatable measures such as the ESP. According to Brislin (1973), wording is critical to proper translation. Brislin (1973) suggested useful rules for formulating questionnaire wording: 1. Use short, simple sentences of fewer than 16 words. 2. Employ the active rather than the passive voice. 3. Repeat nouns instead of using pronouns. 4. Avoid metaphors and colloquialisms. Such phrases are least likely to have equivalents in the target language. 5. Avoid the subjunctive mode, for example, verb forms with could or would. 6. Avoid adverbs and prepositions telling "where" or "when" (e.g., frequent, beyond, upper). 7. Avoid possessive forms of words where possible. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 13 8. Use specific rather than general terms (e.g., the specific animals, such as cows, chickens, pigs, rather than the general term "livestock"). 9. Avoid words that indicate vagueness regarding some event or thing (e.g., probably and frequently). 10. Avoid sentences with two different verbs if the verbs suggest different actions. To initiate the back-translation process, four competent bilingual translators had to be found. Two translators were needed to translate the measure from the source language to the target language, while the other two were needed to back translate from the target language to the source language. The researcher reviews all translations for errors in meaning, and if errors are found, then the translation from the source language to the target language should be repeated until all errors are eliminated (McDermott and Palchanes, 1992). After the completion of the translation and back-translation process, pretests with monolingual natives in the target language should be conducted for checking the readability of the completed target language version. These pretest procedures also ensure that the participants comprehend all the questions (Brislin, 1970). To ensure equivalence between the source and target version of a back-translated instrument, Brislin (1970) recommended the use of three techniques in addition to back- translation: the committee approach, the bilingual technique, and pretest method. These three techniques are discussed below. Committee Approach In the committee approach, “ a group of bilinguals translate from the source to the target language. The mistakes of one member can be caught by others on the committee” (Brislin, 1970, p. 187). The committee approach is mainly utilized for detecting and revising translation mistakes. In the committee approach, Phillips et. al. (1994) strongly stressed the importance of collaboration among bicultural individuals to ensure that questionnaire items are culturally appropriate. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 4 In a study by Phillips et al (1994), the Beliefs about Caregiving Scale (B ACS) was used for checking the difference in conceptual definitions of family caregiving between Anglo and Mexican American families. This BACS was translated from English to Spanish, then backtranslated into English. Before proceeding with the translation, they established a bicultural research team in order to review the translation and backtranslahon, and compare the backtranslated English version with the original. In this team, cultural appropriateness and the wording of each test item were discussed. This bicultural research team is an example of the application of the committee approach described by Brislin (1970). In this proposed study, a committee approach will be utilized for the following two reasons: (1) in order to revise the translation mistakes, (2) in order to examine the functional equivalence between the original and the translated text. Thus, a committee composed of bilingual cultural experts familiar with both cultures is desirable to minimize the effects of cultural differences surrounding social custom. In addition, the importance of simultaneously combining more than one translation technique has been described in this section. The bilingual technique is yet another method that has been used in more recent studies. In the next section, the bilingual technique is briefly discussed. Bilingual Technique Most recent translation studies use the bilingual technique following back- translation (e.g., McDermott and Palchanes, 1992; Mumford, Tareen, Bajwa, Bhatti, and Karim, 1991; Pandey, Mandal, Taylor, and Parker, 1996; Phillips, Hernandez and Ardon, 1994). The bilingual technique is used to confirm the accuracy of the final translation. Brislin (1970) explained this process as when “ Bilinguals take a test in both known languages. Items yielding discrepant responses can be easily identified” (p. 187). A good example of combining back-translation with the committee approach and bilingual technique, is cited when Mumford e t al (1991) conducted a translation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Prior to the translation procedure, a R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 15 translation committee was formed in order to confirm the accuracy of each step of the translation process. At the beginning, the English version of HADS was translated into Urdu by 6 translators, then this committee examined the translated Urdu text in detail. The Urdu version agreed with the translation that was provided to the committee of 6 different translators, who were requested to back translate into English. Each item was carefully compared with the original English version to the back-translated version to determine whether the precise meaning of the original English version had been conveyed. As a follow up process, the Urdu version was repeatedly revised to dispose of meaning differences between the original and the back-translated English version. Until this point, Mumford et al (1991) utilized the combination of back-translation and the committee approach. Then, after the completion of the final Urdu version of the HADS, Mumford added a bilingual technique by using bilingual participants. The English and Urdu versions of the HADS were administered to 120 bilingual participants. Half of the participants received the English version and half the Urdu version. After 20 minutes, each participant was administered the other version of the test Each test was scored, then difference scores (Urdu minus English) were calculated for each participant’s pair of responses to each item (Mumford, 1991). Mean difference scores for each item were computed with 95% confidence intervals. Although the results showed a few statistically significant differences between the English version and the Urdu version, the differences were small, and the investigators concluded that they were not clinically meaningful. The implication was that the English and Urdu versions were functionally equivalent. In recent studies involving translation, this bilingual technique is deemed desirable because of its objectivity. However, there is a need to examine the advantages and disadvantages of this technique. The advantage to using this bilingual technique is that results can be computed objectively. This quantitative analysis may give some indication of how well the participants understand the meaning of each item. However, when different scores between two groups are obtained, it is not possible to ascertain whether the difference R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 6 is due to usage cultural differences of the two languages, or due to translation problems. Another disadvantage of this technique is that it involves recruiting a large number of bilingual participants, which may not always be feasible. Due to the limited availability of English and Japanese bilingual translators this technique was not feasible nor utilized in this proposed study. Pretest Method In this study, the pretest method was added for further evaluating the appropriateness of the Japanese version of the ESP (JESP). Brislin (1970) explained this method as when, “ after a translation is completed, it is field-tested to insure that future participants will comprehend all questions” (p. 187). In the study by Phillips et. al. (1994), qualitative data were derived from written and verbal comments of monolingual participants in response to questions regarding how well they understood each item in the translated Spanish version of the Beliefs about Caregiving Scale. Based on these data, each item of the Spanish version of the B ACS was revised by their bicultural research team. In this study, this pretest method was used as one of the translation techniques. After completion of the back-translation process, five Japanese monolingual parents were interviewed by the main researcher in order to collect qualitative data. The participants were asked about the meaning of each question and the researcher made notes on their responses. Based on the responses by the Japanese participants, the wording of items on the JESP could be modified. In a recent study concerning effective translation techniques, Munet-Vilaro and Egan (1990) suggested that the use of colloquialisms or negatively worded questions must be avoided, in addition to following Brislin’s basic rules. It is their view that some sentences written as colloquialisms can be translated in many ways into another language and therefore result in the loss of the original intended meaning. Sometimes, however, the target language may not have a way to express certain colloquial phrases. Also, negatively worded R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 17 questions are frequently complex and give different impressions, leading to erroneous responses. In this study, when it was necessary to repeat the back-translation process for some items, consideration was given to revising the original English ESP items in the relevant items in order to conform with Brislin’s recommendations listed above. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 18 CHAPTER III METHODS Instrument The instrument used in this study was the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP), Research Version 3. As mentioned earlier, the ESP was translated into Japanese by using a combination of three techniques: back-translation, committee approach, and pretest method (Brislin, 1970). These well-established techniques are widely utilized in cross-cultural research (e.g., McDermott and Palchanes, 1992; Mumford, Tareen, Bajwa, Bhatti, and Karim, 1991; Munet-Vilaro and Egan, 1990; Pandey, Mandal, Taylor, and Parker, 1996). Procedure Qualifications of Translators In this study, four bilingual translators were recruited. Two Japanese translators were in charge of the Japanese translation, and one Japanese and one American were in charge for English back-translation. An important key to the success of the research was the proper qualifications of the translators. The qualifications of bilingual translators matched the following criteria: 1. Ideally, the translator should be a native Japanese speaker and Japanese citizen. If a translator is not a native Japanese speaker, the person must be fluent in spoken and written Japanese, must have had experience living in Japan, and must be familiar with Japanese culture. 2. The translator must be a graduate of some university in the United States. 3. The translator should have a master’s degree. All of the translators met the above criteria; all translators were native Japanese except for one American. This translator had lived in Japan more than 8 consecutive years as a missionary, and he was familiar with Japanese culture and customs through his experiences in Japan. At the time of the study, he worked in a Japanese community in the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 19 United States as a pastor, and primarily speaks Japanese at work. All of the translators graduated from a university in the United States. One of the two Japanese translators who produced the Japanese ESP draft had met the researcher when they were students at the University of Missouri, where she received a graduate degree in counseling. Her undergraduate major was English, and she had much experience working as a commercial translator. At the time of the study, she lived in San Francisco. The other Japanese translator involved with the Japanese translation was a former university classmate of the first Japanese translator. At the time of study, she was working on her Ph.D. at Syracuse University in New York, and she also worked as a full-time commercial translator. The American translator was an acquaintance of the researcher before the study began, and he introduced the researcher to the second back-translator. She has a graduate degree in English education and she worked as a teacher of English as a foreign language. Also, she had a great deal of experience working full-time as a translator and interpreter. The two back-translators lived in Los Angeles at the time of study. Translators were asked to participate as members of the translation and back- translation committees of this study in addition to performing translations. All four translators participated in the translation and back-translation committee as members. Translation Procedures The process of translation is summarized in the Figure below. ► Trans ation (original English into Japanese) a. Two tra n sla to rs w ork independently. 4 ^ b . T ranslation com m ittee generates first d ra ft of J-E S P . Back-translation (Japanese into English) I a. Two new tra n sla to rs independently b ack -tran siate. X b . B ack -tran slatio n com m ittee g en erates first b a c k -tra n sla tio n . Comparison of translation and back-translation I a. Equivalency com m ittee com pares item s. I b. O riginal English ESP items a re revised, if deem ed problem atic. Items revised If some meaning differences are found, repeat steps above for items to be revised. Field test Figure 1. Process of Translation R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 Translation from English into Japanese Two bilingual translators were asked to independently translate the original ESP into Japanese. These translators were given a brief explanation about the ESP. Prior to the actual translation, translators were given the following instructions modified from Brislin’s (1973) recommendations regarding wording for the translation process: (a) to make the style as simple and short as possible; (b) to avoid the use of negatively worded questions: (c) to avoid colloquialisms; (d) to try to translate the meaning of the item, even if the translator was not able to translate a word literally because of a cultural difference; and (e) to make notes whenever the translator met some difficulty in choosing the right words for translation. Aside from these instructions, the translators worked independently, and no additional instructions were given until the translations were completed. The translators were strongly encouraged to complete the translation process even if they encountered difficulties in translating some English words into Japanese. In these cases the translators were asked to translate by considering the meaning of the items in question. The translation committee. Just after the translation from English to Japanese was completed, the translation committee was organized. This committee was composed of the main researcher and the two bilingual translators involved in the initial translation. Due to the geographic locations of the translators, the committee meeting took place in the form of a conference call. During this conference call, the main researcher took notes on the discussions and decisions regarding the problematic portions of the translation process. The main purpose of this conference call was to help translators complete the translation process and to reach a final agreement on the wording of items for the first draft of the Japanese version of the ESP. In cases in which the translators were not able to independently complete all portions of the translation, problematic items were discussed to decide how to translate them. If some of the translated items were deemed culturally R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 inappropriate, discussion took place regarding whether these items should be discarded or changed. Back-Translation from Japanese into English After the completion of the translation from the original English version to the Japanese version of the ESP, two new bilingual translators served as back translators. Their role was to independently back-translate the Japanese version into English. The same instructions given to the previous translators were given to these translators: The translators were required to take notes, if they found some untranslatable words, and they were strongly encouraged to complete the back-translation process in spite of recognizing difficulties in translating some words into English. The back-translation committee meeting. The back-translation committee met after the translation from Japanese to English was completed. The back-translation committee was composed of the main researcher and the two back-translators. This committee was required to examine differences in wording and meaning in the contents of the two back-translated English versions. The purpose of this meeting was twofold: to help the translators resolve any differences needed in order to complete the translation process and to generate a single back-translation to be used in the next step in the translation process. Again the main researcher took notes on this meeting. Comparison Between the Back-Translated and the Original ESP An equivalency committee was formed to compare the two English versions of the ESP for functional equivalence. The members of this committee were composed of the main researcher, and the researcher’s thesis advisor. The equivalence committee identified items in the two versions of the ESP that differed according to the functional equivalence criterion (described below). For each of these problematic items, the main researcher summarized the possible reasons for the difference, based on notes taken during the translation and back-translation committee meetings, and conveyed this during the equivalence committee meeting. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 Possible reasons were discussed by the committee, which considered whether retranslating these problematic items was necessary. If retranslation was indicated, then the entire translation/ back-translation process was repeated for the items in question. This process was repeated until the back-translated English items all agreed with the original English source items. The Equivalency Criteria The most important role of the equivalence committee was to determine and maintain the functional equivalence between the two versions of the ESP. In this study, the following four points from the work of Sechrest et al (1972) were used to examine equivalence between the original and back-translated versions of the ESP. Based on these criteria, each ESP item was individually evaluated for equivalence of meaning. The equivalency criteria are: Vocabulary equivalence. Because one word may have several different meanings, key words of the two versions of each item must be checked to ensure that the meaning is the same. A thesaurus was used to assist in this work. Idiomatic equivalence. Some idioms may not be translatable from one language to another. If such idioms were identified, several options for translation would be jointly proposed by the committee includes the main researcher. Among these proposed translations, the most appropriate one would be agreed upon by the committee. Grammatical-syntactical equivalence. Two languages may not have equivalent grammatical structures. For example, in Japanese sentences, the verb must be placed at the end of a sentence, whereas in English, the verb generally is placed after the subject Before translation and back-translation procedures, translators would be instructed to translate keeping in mind these grammatical differences. If they encountered difficulties due to grammatical problems, they would be R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 required to take notes identifying these situations. In the committee meeting, these problems would be discussed and resolved through committee discussion. Conceptual equivalence. Sometimes it may be that the concept of one word in one language cannot be translated into another language because of a lack of the same concept in the second language. If this situation were to arise, the committee would be asked to identify an alternative word or phrase that was as close as possible to the meaning in the English source version. After consideration of these equivalencies in the two versions of the ESP, if some functional inequivalence in ESP items was detected by the committee, the same process (translation and back-translation process) was repeated until the inequivalence was eliminated. Prior to repeating the translation process, the wording of problematic items in the original English version of the ESP was revised following Brislin’s recommendations, if deemed desirable by the committee. After completing all of these processes, the Japanese version of the ESP was finished. Field Test and Interview of the Participants Once the Japanese version of the ESP was finished, it was field-tested to ensure that Japanese monolingual parents of young children interpreted all the questions as they were intended. Five Japanese parents were recruited as respondents for the field test. All of them were native Japanese speakers able to read and write in Japanese who were now living in the United States. All of them were very familiar with Japanese culture as they were bom in Japan and had spent a minimum of 20 years there. Although for the most part they could speak English fluently, they all preferred to speak in Japanese. Each respondent spoke only Japanese in his or her families. All of the respondents were mothers and their children’s ages ranged from 4 years 5 months to 8 years 8 months old. Of these children, two children were identified by occupational therapists as having sensory processing dysfunction. One was a 4 year and 5 month old male, diagnosed with autism, who had being R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 treated by an occupational therapist in the school district. The other was a 7 year and 10 month old male diagnosed with a learning disability, an auditory processing delay, and a language disorder. He had received OT services at one time, but currently was enrolled in an adaptive physical education program at school. The other children were a 5 year and 4 month old male, a 6 year and 2 month old female, and an 8 year and 8 month old female. Field-testing procedure. Participants were asked to independently complete the entire Japanese ESP. They were then interviewed by the main researcher to see whether they understood the meaning of some of the questions. The total number of questions of the JESP draft was 185, so each parent participated in an in-depth interview focused on a different set of 37 questions. The main researcher first asked if the participant had any difficulty understanding the meaning of any of the questions. If the response was, “Yes”, then the parent was asked specifically which question she had trouble understanding. They were also asked what made the question difficult to understand, if there was a particular part of the question that was difficult After these questions were answered, the respondents were then asked to explain how they interpreted the question. The main researcher reviewed these comments to determine whether they understood the intended meaning of the given questions. Next, the respondents were asked to comment generally on all of the remaining JESP items in case they had experienced any problems understanding certain items. The main researcher took notes on their interpretations of specific items and on their general comments. Each interview lasted two to three hours. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 CHAPTER IV RESULTS In this chapter, the results regarding translation and field-test processes will be separately explained. The result of the translation process will be explained in accordance with each process indicated in Figure 1 in the procedure section of Chapter HI. Translation ('Original ESP into Japanese’ ) Each of the two Japanese translators completed their first Japanese translations without encountering items that were not translatable. After finishing the first Japanese translation, the first translation committee conference call was executed. At this point, the translators did indicate they had some difficulties translating some items due to cultural differences. Two Japanese translators worked independently to complete the translation process. Then, their opinions about it were collected via fax transmission prior to the conference call meeting of the translation committee. This committee was comprised of the main researcher and the two Japanese translators. As mentioned in chapter HI, the purpose of this translation committee was to help translators complete the translation process and reach a final agreement on the wording of items for the first draft of the JESP. Neither of the translators reported having many difficulties with the translation process, so it was easily finished. Both felt the items on the ESP were written in clear English. In addition, both of the translators had a lot of experience working as commercial translators, so translation process was not difficult for them. Therefore, the first purpose of the translation committee was accomplished — the initial translation process was completed. The next step was to reach a final agreement on the wording of items for the first draft of the JESP. Differences between the two Japanese translations were discussed in order to generate the first draft of the JESP. Because the translation process from English R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 6 to Japanese met with little difficulty, the translators were able to generate a common version of the JESP upon which they both agreed. However, the translators also suggested changing 14 items of the original ESP due to cultural differences. Specifically, it was suggested that some of the original ESP questions be revised to take into account (a) differences between Japanese and American lifestyles, (b) cultural differences in tolerance for olfactory stimuli, and (c) the need to translate English alphabet or word examples into Japanese. Differences in lifestyles were noted between the two countries, for example, using a lawn mower is not a common practice in Japan (Auditory question #28 of the ESP). Most children in Japan do not wear sunglasses (tactile #19) as it is not socially acceptable. The translators suggested that these examples be changed to more culturally appropriate examples in the future. Similarly, repugnance toward certain sensory stimuli may be heavily dependent on cultural differences. Olfactory/gustatory sensations are deeply embedded within an individual culture. It appears to this researcher that Americans are much more likely than Japanese to be sensitive to certain smells. For example, Japanese for the most part are not likely to be annoyed by the smell of cooked broccoli (olfactory/gustatory #10), cooked spinach (olfactory/gustatory #11), or the fishy smell of cat food (olfactory/gustatory #12), as these are very common odors. It is interesting to note that the items regarding the olfactory/gustatory sensation seem to distinctly reflect differences in tolerance for odors between the two cultures. It could be said that Japanese are more likely to enjoy and tolerate a variety of smells, which made it important to substitute Japanese foods with extremely strong smells in place of some of the milder examples in the olfactory/ gustatory items. These changes, along with the others suggested by the translators, were made later on in the process of producing a rigorous translation of the ESP. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 Since a few questions in the ESP refer specifically to the English alphabet or words as examples, it was suggested that these be changed to Japanese examples. These changes suggested by the initial translators were later addressed by the equivalency committee. Back-translation fJESP Draft into English') Two new translators, one Japanese and one American started the back-translation process. Each of the translators independently completed the back-translation process. The back-translation process took much longer to complete than the generation of the JESP draft Although the two back translators were able to complete and generate a back- translated English draft, it seemed much more difficult for them to bring certain nuances of meaning into their translations. After they each completed a back-translation of the JESP, the back-translation committee meeting was held. The two back-translated versions of the JESP were compared by the back- translation committee. This committee was required to examine differences in wording and meaning in the contents of the two back-translated English versions. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the purpose of this meeting was to help the translators resolve any differences needed to complete the translation process and generate a single back-translation to be used for the next step of the translation process. Essentially, the back-translations were compared to each other item by item to generate the first back-translation draft. In order to regulate the comparison process, the following points were considered in unifying the two back-translations: (a) equivalency of sentence meaning; (b) choosing between common and proper words; (c) choosing the degree of intensity of verbs or other words; (d) unifying the sentence structure; (e) unifying the mode of expression. The committee evaluated the equivalency of sentence meaning when a difference between the two back-translations was detected. The meaning difference then was checked by discussing the meaning of each sentence. Specifically, 152 items (83.2%) of back- translation items went through this process. Surprisingly, between the two back-translations R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 58 (95.1%) of the items referring to the tactile system required discussion on the equivalency of sentence meaning. If some differences in meaning were detected in the two back-translations, then discussion would start with interpreting the Japanese draft again and identifying the problematic areas. When the problematic portions were searched, the previously mentioned conditions (b) through (e) became the guiding principles in determining the specific kinds of problems encountered. In accordance with condition (b), single word differences and improper words were discussed and replaced with proper words, thus 53 items (28.6% of items) were optimized. The differences of intensity of words were investigated by condition (c). The subtle difference of some words’ intensity or nuance frequently was the cause of differences between individual translators. These kinds of differences were not only limited to a single word, but also affected the entire sentence structure, resulting in 22.2% of back-translation items needing to be changed. The original ESP utilized a relatively clear and concise sentence style. Therefore, if a certain sentence in the back-translation did not follow this kind of style, it might adopt a different nuance that was not in the original. Condition (d) was utilized for decreasing the likelihood of this possibility, and 16.2% items were corrected. The last condition (e) was incorporated mainly to minimize the use of idiomatic expressions. Specific instructions were given to the back-translators not to use idiomatic expressions unless they were needed in order to make the sentence more natural, leading to 36 items (19.5% of items) being optimized by the committee. Interestingly, the items regarding the tactile and vestibular system were more likely to be discussed regarding the equivalency of meaning. The items regarding olfactory/gustatory, proprioceptive, and visual systems were less likely to be discussed and thus were less likely to be corrected. After much discussion and effort, the committee was able to successfully generate the first ESP back-translation. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 29 The First Equivalency Committee The back-translated ESP was brought to the equivalency committee so it could be compared to the original ESP. The equivalency committee was comprised of the researcher and the thesis chair. Prior to this, the first back-translation was checked for wording and expression by an ESP researcher, Cheryl Johnson Ecker. In addition to being an occupational therapist and an expert in sensory integration treatment, she is also involved in the development of the ESP in the United States. Because she previously conducted as item validity study of the ESP (Johnson, 1996), she was therefore very familiar with the content of each ESP item. Every back-translated item was checked carefully by her. If differences were detected between the back-translated and original ESP, she identified the item and provided an explanation of the nature of the difference that she perceived. She suggested that 65 of the items needed to be discussed by the equivalency committee. The main reasons were (a) the differences of intensity between certain words or sentences, (b) wording not standardly used In English, and (c) the meaning differences based on the grammatical differences between English and Japanese. Reason (a) was suggested most often by her. On the whole, the back-translated ESP items tended to use words that carried lower intensity in meaning than the original ESP. Specifically, the back- translated ESP tended to use weaker verbs in place of their stronger counterparts contained in the original version. This critique of the back-translated ESP was brought to the first equivalency committee for further review. All of the results from the back-translation process were brought into the equivalency committee meeting, which was comprised of the main researcher and the thesis chair. Each item from the back-translation process was individually compared to the original English version, taking the expert's suggestions into account To maintain conformity, the comparison of the original ESP and the back-translated version was guided by the equivalency criteria described previously in chapter m . The final decision for each R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 0 Table 1 Back-translation Requirements Sensory system. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Auditory 31 5 16.1% 4 12.9% 3_2% Gustatory/ olfactory 15 4 26.7% 3 20.0% 6.7% Proprioceptive 31 5 16.1% 4 12.9% 3.2% Tactile 61 12 19.7% 11 18.0% 1.6% Vestibular 33 9 27.3% 8 24.2% 3.0% Visual 20 3 15.0% 2 10.0% 5.0% Total 185 38 32 6 Note, (a) = Number of items of the ESP (b) = Number of items requiring a second back-translation (c) = Percentage of items requiring a second back-translation (d) = Number of English revisions (e) = Percentage of items requiring English revisions (f) = Number of Japanese revisions (g) = Percentage of items requiring Japanese revisions item regarding whether the two versions of English were equivalent in the meaning was made by the committee. As a result of this committee review, 38 items in total (20.5%) were designated by the committee as having some minor problems regarding translation (See Table 1). Before the second back-translation was to be done for these items, the committee identified the necessity of revising specific items in the original ESP. Indeed, the equivalency committee identified 32 items from the original English ESP to be revised prior to repeating the translation process. Six items from the Japanese ESP draft were also identified as needing revision prior to repeated back-translation. It is interesting to note that the items pertaining to the vestibular system demonstrated the most problems with equivalency when compared to the other sensory systems (a total of 9 out of 33 items, or 27.3% of vestibular items requiring correction R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 1 Table2 Number of Sensory System Errors in the First Back-translation Sensory system a b c d e Auditory 4 2 1 1 0 Gustatory/ olfactory 4 0 3 0 0 Proprioceptive 4 2 2 1 0 Tactile 9 8 0 2 0 Vestibular 5 4 1 2 3 Visual 1 2 0 1 0 Total 27/38:71.1% 18/38:47.4% 7/38:18.4% 7/38:18.4% 3/38 :7.9% Note, a = Conceptual equivalence b = Vocabulary equivalence c = Grammatical-syntactical equivalence d = Idiomatic equivalence e = Simple meaning error and/or revision). Next, 4 out of 15 olfactory/gustatory items (or 26.7%) required corrections. Among the remaining sensory systems, 20.0% of proprioceptive items (5 items out of 25 items), 19.7% of tactile items (12 items out of 61 items), 16.1% of auditory items (5 items out of 31 items), and 15.0% of visual items (3 items out of 20 items), respectively, required corrections and/or revisions. The determining factors regarding whether or not certain items might need revision were grounded in the equivalency criteria previously discussed. Of the 38 items that required a second back-translation 27 items (71.1%) had problems related conceptual equivalency. Vocabulary equivalence was a problem for 18 items (47.4%), grammatical-syntactical equivalence for 7 items (18.4%), and idiomatic equivalence for 7 items (18.4%) (See table 2). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 2 This relatively high number of items with conceptual equivalency problems indicated that many items needed to be reworded in order to resolve the subtle meaning differences between the original and the back-translated ESP versions. Although the back-translated words were expected to convey similar concepts and meanings as the original English version, many words used in the back-translations had a tendency to be weaker in intensity than the original. Therefore, some of the original ESP items were revised or reworded to make the intensity of specific words stronger than before. For example, “Does your child seem driven to touch different textures?” (Tactile #17 of the original ESP) was back- translated to “Does your child seem to desire touching different textures?” The used word “drive” in the original ESP is much stronger than the word “desire” in the back-translated ESP. Vocabulary equivalency issues were related to problems of conceptual equivalency. All words in the original and back-translated ESP were closely examined by using a thesaurus to determine whether they had the same meaning or not. Although the words generally had the same meaning, the subtle nuances and/or the intensity of the words were not always the same. These subtle differences between the two versions sometimes made the original and back-translated ESP differ in meaning. To solve these problems, revisions were made in the original ESP in order to clarify the intensity of certain words and thus to make the original ESP easier to back-translate with the intended meaning. For example, ‘Does your child demonstrate an excessive need to touch?” (Tactile #48 of the original ESP) was revised to “ Does your child have an extremely strong desire to touch?” to make clearer the concept of this question. The most helpful procedure in planning these revisions was the discussion held by the equivalency committee regarding the reason for the differences between English and Japanese concepts. Problems in grammatical-syntactical and idiomatic equivalence were relatively infrequent. Most problems regarding grammar seemed to occur in the back-translation process. These translators had a tendency to place examples of characteristic behavior at the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 3 beginning of the sentence, whereas the original ESP items began with a verb phrase such as “Does your child” or “ Is your child” and ended with a behavioral example. Items on the Japanese ESP draft followed the grammatical style of the original ESP, but in the back- translation draft, sometimes the examples would be placed before the main subject in the sentence structure. Although this is not grammatically incorrect, it did slighdy alter the meanings of the items. Consequently, it was decided that the back-translators would specifically be told how to structure their translated sentences before they began the second back-translation of the problematic items. In regard to idiomatic equivalence, although the original ESP used very few idiomatic expressions, there were still a few expressions that were difficult to translate into Japanese. For example, while the expression" to catch oneself when falling” (vestibular item #17) is a natural expression for Americans, it is not for Japanese. Even though its meaning is fairly straightforward in English, it is difficult to reproduce in Japanese. Most of the idiomatic problems were similar to this, thus reinforcing the importance of the committee's discussion to resolve such problems. In summary, 32 items of the original ESP and 6 items of the first JESP draft were identified at the first equivalency committee meeting as needing revision. These items underwent a second back-translation. Second Translation ('Original ESP into Japanese') The same procedure that had been used for the first translation was repeated for the second translation. The same translators were employed for the second translation. The 32 revised ESP items were sent to the translators by fax, at which time they were asked to repeat the translation process. In addition, the 6 items from the JESP draft requiring repeated translation were faxed to them along with the corresponding original items in English. The translators were to work under the same conditions as the first time except this time they were given the following instruction: “ In the translation, try to adhere to the original meaning of the sentence as much as possible.” These instructions were given R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 4 because in trying to make the contents more easily understood, the Japanese translators tended to loosely structure their translations, which slightly altered the meaning. The second translation was completed within a few hours, and the second translation committee was held. The procedure of the second translation committee was the same as the first After the translators completed their translations, they were sent to the main researcher for the second translation committee to review. The second translation of the JESP draft was generated more easily than the first one, because there were fewer items that required translations, and because the first equivalency committee had already revised the English version of some items, making them clearer to understand. Furthermore, the translators already had experienced completing the first Japanese translation; therefore it was not as difficult to generate the revised draft. The translators realized that mainly word choice conveying greater intensity was needed, thus, they tended to be more careful about choosing just the right word in their translations. The discussion towards generating the second Japanese draft predominantly focused on transferring the same intensity in meaning of words from the original ESP to the JESP. After completing their work, the translators were interviewed regarding their impressions of the second translation process. Both translators reported that revisions of the English version made the meaning of each item much easier to comprehend. Thus, they were better able to translate the intensity of words and/or sentences, which in turn helped to preserve the intended meaning throughout the translation process. The second translation also tended to be translated more literally by the two Japanese translators. This may have been due to the fact that more attention and effort was placed on matching the meaning of the original. Because it was more literal, this translation tended to be somewhat rigid. The committee concluded, however, that these items accurately reflected the original meaning. At this time, the 38 items that required revision were submitted to the second back-translation team. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 5 Second Back-translation (Second JESP Draft into English') All procedures for the back-translation process were the same as before. The back- translation was carried out on the 38 items that had been revised by the Japanese translation team. The back-translators worked independently and were able to finish their translations without any difficulty. Any additional instructions that had been given to the Japanese translators were not given to these two back-translators. The two completed back- translation drafts were then brought into the second back-translation committee. The two new back-translations had a few differences, which appeared to stem from the translators’ preferences for a certain word. Although they could not always explain the reason they chose a particular word other than the fact they preferred it, they were able to easily reach an agreement on an appropriate word without need for much discussion. The revision of problematic ESP items completed by the first equivalency committee apparently was very effective in generating a successful second back-translation, in that the meaning of the second Japanese translation was very clear and easy to follow. Because the difficult expressions regarding the intensity of words were revised following the first back- translation, the second back-translation committee did not need to spend much time in discussion. The 38 items that required a second back-translation were next sent to the second equivalency committee. The Second Equivalency Committee The second equivalency committee meeting was carried out with the same procedures as the first equivalency committee. Each back-translated item was carefully compared to the English version by the main researcher and thesis chair. All of the second back-translated items were reviewed by the second equivalency committee. It was concluded that all of the 38 revised items were adequately back-translated except for three items (olfactory/gustatory items #10 through #12). These items required a third translation in order to resolve a tense problem. In the translated version, but not the original version, these three items used the present perfect form. Since the Japanese R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 6 translations of these three items did not use the present perfect form, these items only required another back-translation. Thus, the second equivalency committee referred these items without revision to the back-translation procedure once again to ensure that the Japanese versions of these items were adequate. Third Back-translation (TESP Draft into English’ ) The three items identified by the second equivalency committee as problematic were returned to the back-translators. Because they had previously translated these same Japanese items, they did not understand why they had to do another back-translation for those items. The researcher explained to them that there were some grammatical problems with their previous translations of these 3 items. After this clue was given to them, they began the third translation process. They were now able to translate the three sentences using the correct tense. Because they were able to generate sentences equivalent to the original, a third equivalency committee was not necessary. At this point, the Japanese ESP draft was completed and now ready for field-testing. Field-Test After the completion of the Japanese version of the ESP (JESP), it was field-tested using Japanese participants as described in Chapter III. After a thorough review of respondents’ comments and feedback regarding the questions on the JESP, it was clear that all of them clearly understood the intended meaning and content of each question. For this reason, an additional equivalence committee did not need to be held. In a face to face interview, all respondents were able to clearly relay the content of each question. Although their comments closely reflected the intended meaning of the JESP draft, this does not mean the JESP draft was without problems. For example, there was some confusion as to whether the answers to the questions should be applied to their child’s past condition as well as present condition. The JESP draft questions were written in the present tense, and were meant to exclusively focus on the child’s current condition. Many parents seemed to mistakenly R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 7 assume that their responses should also include past conditions of their child. This does not indicate a problem regarding the verb tense used in the JESP, but rather a problem in understanding the entire scope of the questions. It might be helpful to clarify to respondents in advance that they are required only to answer the questions regarding the current condition of their child. Feedback also indicated that some questions required more attention than others, due to a literal translation that used unfamiliar wording. The questions that had such a tendency closely coincided with the re-translated questions. It is possible that this may be due to the back-translation process, which led to more rigid translations of particular words. Interestingly, the comments from the respondents had a tendency to converge on particular questions. While for the most part, they commented that they could understand the general meaning of the questions, there were some situations described within the items that were difficult to comprehend. In the auditory section, for example, the following question posed some difficulty: “Does your child appear to make noise in order to hear the sound?” (Item #22/auditory). The respondents commented that the situation described in this question" to make noise in order to hear the sound" was unclear. Items #8 and #19 in the proprioception section were indicated as having similar difficulties. “Does your child perform most activities weakly?” (Item#l9) was referred to by most of the respondents as being hard to follow. One of the respondents said," I know what this question is trying to ask, but I think it may need more work explaining more specifically what it is trying to ask.” Another suggestion was to add an example to the question to make it more clear. Another example of a difficult question was in the tactile section," Does your child avoid touching different textures?" (Item #55/tactile). The respondent felt this question needs examples to prompt her understanding regarding this particular behavior. This opinion was expressed mainly by a respondent whose child had no disability. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 8 Many comments were obtained in regard to questions in the vestibular section. Items #17, #20, #26, #27, #30, and #32 were indicated as requiring more time to deliberate upon to determine their meaning. Almost all respondents expressed confusion with items #17, #20, and #26. The content of vestibular item # 20 (Does your child seem generally weak?) is identical to the proprioception item #19 (Does your child seem generally weak?), and most of respondents commented that they were not able to definitively answer about this question. Similar to this, vestibular item #26 also seemed to be a very difficult question for the respondents to understand. It posed the question," Does your child tend to need movement in order to ‘get going’, for example, after waking up from a nap?" It was not clear to the parents what specifically was meant by the term “movement.” Again, the respondent stated some examples would have been helpful in understanding the question. The feedback could be summarized in the following 2 points: (1) some questions need clarification in order to make them easier to understand, and (2) specific examples would help accomplish this for some items. Although these suggestions were aimed at making the original ESP easier to understand, the main purpose of the field-testing was to ensure that the respondents understood the meaning of each question in the JESP draft. Because this was accomplished, it was determined that the field-test was a success. The suggestions acquired in the respondents’ feedback should be utilized for any future revision of the original ESP, and will be discussed further in the next chapter. The outcome of this research project seemed to be very much influenced by the characteristics inherent in the Japanese language. This will also be discussed in the next chapter. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 9 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The translation process was successfully completed. By utilizing the back- translation procedure and other translation techniques, confidence in the accuracy of translation was increased dramatically. The advantage in using these techniques was apparent in that a relatively low number of items(only 38, or 20.5%) required a second translation. Furthermore, only three questions (1.6% of all items) required a third back- translation. As well as increasing the accuracy of the translations, the wording of items in the original ESP was enhanced. The procedures used in this research were able to maintain a high level of accuracy in the translations between the English and Japanese versions of the ESP. However, the results of the field-testing suggested that further qualitative data analysis is strongly needed to clarify the subtle expressions of the Japanese language. In this chapter, the discussion mainly centers around the relationship between the problems that arose from the translation processes and the characteristics inherent in the Japanese language. Language Characteristics of Japanese and Translation Problems In the previous chapter, two problems regarding translation were indicated. The first problem was that some questions in the JESP initially were not translated accurately due to the fact that certain words lost their intensity of meaning in the process of translation. The second problem was that some of the respondents in the field-testing gave feedback that some items on the JESP needed to be expanded upon with examples to help their comprehension of its meaning. The characteristics of the Japanese language may contribute strongly to these problems. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 0 First, a very basic and important feature of the Japanese language needs to be explained. Professor Morita (1998) of the Waseda University, explains that Japanese is a language that tends to place the subject (speaker or writer) itself in the center of the conversation or sentence. Furthermore, the place of the communicator in the social hierarchy is a very important aspect to be considered in the Japanese culture. The status of the speaker/writer needs to be taken into account by other people. Hence, it can be said that Japanese is a language that strongly depends on the subject's social status. Once, he/she as the subject is placed at the center of the expression, then communication with other people takes place without use of the subject (pronoun) “ I.” It is not rare to leave the subject out of the sentence: however, such an ellipsis is not only limited to the subject, but also to other parts of speech. Therefore, the receiver has to immediately determine the standpoint in order for effective communication to take place. Essentially, the receiver is required to supplement what the communicator is trying to express for the next communication. Sometimes, it is even necessary to understand unspoken words. Contrary to this, if a third person becomes a subject in a communication, the situation that is described by utilizing such a person becomes strongly objectified. The speaker expresses himself/herself regarding the situation based on his/her subjective judgement Hence, if a sentence is constructed that employs a third person as the subject such a sentence may use word(s) that express something indirectly. Morita (1998) explained this through the following example by identifying the differences between Chinese and Japanese in a particular situation. According to Morita (1998,p. 133), if someone was visiting a coworker in the hospital, and was trying to cheer him/her up, a Chinese inquirer might say, “ Hello; you don't look well. Please don’t worry about your work; we’ll take care of it. Just rest and relax.” Then, Morita (1998, p. 134) explained what a Japanese inquirer might say in the same situation: “ You look better than I thought. We are worried about your condition, but R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 1 you seem to be OK. We need you back at work as soon as possible, because we had a trouble without you. Please get better and come back to work soon to ease our minds.” From the comparison of these two examples, Morita explained that a Chinese person indicates his/her feeling directly to the sick person, and describes his/her feeling more objectively without relating his/her own situation to the sick person’s. On the contrary to this, the Japanese tend to indicate feeling indirectly, while relating his/her situation to the situation of the person and expressing his or her feeling from passive viewpoints. Hence, in the Japanese example, the colleague regards the sick person as an important person in their work place, while at the same time, implying that he/ she is missed and they need him/her. In this example, the sick person is emphasized as the important person, and would therefore be cheered up. The Japanese use very specialized expressions that very likely have influenced the translation process in this study. The frequent usage of the passive form and humble expression are such two examples. In the next section, these will be explained. The frequent use of passive form in Japanese. The first example to be discussed is using the passive form in Japanese sentences. According to Morita (1998), when composing sentences, Japanese tend to pay a great deal of attention to euphemisms, nonchalance, and indirect expression. Using a passive form in the sentence structure is one way this is accomplished. Morita (1998) said that in his comparative language study of the Japanese and Chinese languages, the Japanese tendency to use more passive forms in sentence structure was statistically verified when comparing two sentences with the same content Essentially, the speaker can avoid indicating the third person's situation directly by adopting a passive form. In Japanese, direct expression is seen as impolite with indirect expression using a passive form being more acceptable. Tomita (1992) states such use of the passive form as not only very commonly used, but also well established. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 2 The preferred usage of humble expression in Japanese. Another grammatical tendency in the Japanese language is the use of humble expression. By making an expression “humble,” the speaker can avoid using direct expression. The most effective way to do this is to use an expression that requires the listener to make an inference regarding the third person. Such examples were observed often in the present study, but in the translation process most were corrected in the translation committee. For example, “Does your child crave hugging or rough playing?” (Proprioception #23 of the original ESP) was back-translated to “ "Does your child often desire to be hugged, or play roughly?” This back-translated item had less intensity due to the humble Japanese expression. In order to express humility, Japanese verbs have many conjugations that express subtle nuances of humility or reverence. In his study, Kindaichi (1991) counted 180 conjugations of Japanese verbs. Although the variety of conjugations serves to make Japanese a rich language that has many expressions of subdety, it has also made it a language with much ambiguity. The following sentence taken from the ESP is a good example of humble Japanese expression. The original ESP phrases the question “Does your child respond to odors that other people do not notice?” The first back-translation of the same question was translated as " Does your child appear to smell odors that others are not aware of?" In these two questions, the original question demands a definitive answer from the respondent, whereas in the back-translated version, a clear answer is not immediately obvious. The verb “appear” changes the nuance of this sentence. Other Japanese features of influencine translation. Brislin (1973) noted that difficult concepts in one language need to be addressed by adding more explanation in the other language. This “ issue of redundancy” (Brislin, 1973, p. 34) was indicated in the comments and feedback from the respondents in the field- test. The necessity for further explanation was suggested, which may be due to particular R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 3 characteristics of the Japanese language. The need for redundancy in the Japanese version of the ESP is related to complex issues related to Japanese usage. Usually, Japanese expression is greatly influenced by the social hierarchy between speakers. On the one hand, the previously mentioned abbreviation of subject is often observed, but on the other hand, depending on the situation the speaker might be recommended to describe his/her points in detail. Kindaichi (1991) indicates that the relationship between the person in the topic and the respondent always has an effect on the expression of a sentence. Also, Morita (1998, p.79) states, “ In Japanese, the usage of honorific expression is decided by the top and bottom relationship or the degree of intimacy of both speakers.” He added that this tendency is not only coming from the fixed objective social hierarchy, but also coming from the subjective and psychological relationship that may be influenced by the occasional situation. Thus, a certain expression may need to be immediately changed to a tone of honor depending on the relationship between the speaker and the person who is the topic of conversation. In the case of the JESP, the relationship between the respondent and the subject ought to have had an effect on the wording of the translation. In addition to this, the difference of position between the respondent and the side asking the questions must be taken into account The questions were directed to the main caretaker of the child, who in all cases in this study was the mother. In other words, the speaker needs to keep it in mind to whom he is talking. Even though the questions in the JESP are about the child’s behavior and responses to certain stimuli, they must be phrased in a way that is taking the respondent who is answering them into account Many words in the back-translated version of the ESP seemed to have been influenced by these characteristics of the Japanese language. For this reason, in many circumstances, the intensities of words were changed to more subtle expressions in order to be more culturally acceptable. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 4 It is interesting to note that all of the field-test respondents commented that some questions needed to have additional explanation in order to understand their exact meaning. Omitting some words is an essential feature of the Japanese language. The “haiku” is a type of poetry that consists of only 17 syllables (Tsunoda and Keene, 1958, p. 441) is a good example of this concept. The Japanese feel there is a sense of beauty in the subtlety and profundity of utilizing a limited number of words. By requiring the reader to incorporate some their own words, the meaning of the poetry is enhanced. In Japanese literature, there is a high degree of freedom of expression. By omitting some words, the Japanese make sentences deeper and more subtle. This is a conventional technique employed in the written language. But in the spoken language and daily writing, this is not always the case. Especially when making a decision, or when asked their opinion, the Japanese tend to avoid making judgement March (1988) explained this kind of Japanese characteristic as "avoidance strategies," and he indicated several tactics used by the Japanese to avoid the situation of decision making or to decrease the load of it. The Japanese do not tend to enjoy declaring their own opinion. When required to indicate a clear opinion under a specific circumstance, the Japanese tend gather additional information in order to make their judgment more objective. This is accomplished by questioning repeatedly. March (1988) called this type of tactic as "tactical questioning." He explained that the Japanese ask many questions because they like to be convinced in their decision making process. This tendency is very apparent, especially when answering questions from written material. In such cases, sentences that require judgment regarding specific conditions have a tendency to be very complicated and written in extensive detail. Using the characteristics of decision-making as described above, Japanese people tend to make their independent judgment more objective. Because of these characteristics of Japanese language it is understandable why the respondents in the field-test required more explanation on some of the JESP questions. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 5 Even if the grammatical rules of the English and Japanese language were the same, difficulties in understanding would still most likely exist due to the characteristics of the Japanese culture and ways of thinking- Even though the respondents in the field test were able to understand the meaning of each question, they still commented that further explanation would be helpful. This clearly demonstrates that a meaningful translation is more than just a grammatical problem. For the Future Study As mentioned in the previous section, multiple translation techniques were very effective in maintaining a high degree of accuracy in the translation process, although there were still some difficulties in translating some questions with the intended meaning into the target language. Because some of the questions had a literal translation, the participants of the field-testing indicated that some questions on the JESP draft required more concentration to derive their meaning. Primarily, the main purpose of the field-testing was to ensure that the respondents were able to accurately comprehend the meaning of the questions. Although recent research tends to mainly concentrate on qualitative and statistical data, more attention needs to be placed on qualitative data to ensure cultural appropriateness of translated instruments (e.g., McDermott and Palchanes, 1992; Mumford, Tareen, Bajwa, Bhatti, and Karim, 1991; Munet-Vilaro and Egan, 1990; Pandey, Mandal, Taylor, and Parker, 1996). Through this research, it is clear that although semantic equivalence can easily be obtained through the translation process, it is much more difficult to apprehend the nuances of a culture. By quoting other studies that have tried to achieve this, Mumford (1991) points out that many researchers have had similar difficulties. Mumford did not have a clear solution to this problem. He stated (1991,p.84) that “perfection can never be achieved, [although] that does not mean that one cannot aim for a good translation,” with objective criteria being the aim in this situation. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 6 Perhaps emphasizing the utilization of objective criteria is one of the solutions. But apparent from the feedback of the respondents in the field-test, it is clear that retaining the nuance of a language is very important in maintaining the comprehensibility of a questionnaire such as the ESP. Unfortunately, this cannot be ensured by statistical data, but rather by repeated and careful field-testing and detailed interviews with monolingual subjects living in the target culture. As seen by this research project, it is clear that only through this type of carefully executed research can the integrity of translation can be maintained. Brislin's (1973, p.50) succinctly sums up the basic rules for generating an accurate translation: 1. The rules for writing translatable English imply that the original passage must be written in simple, third-grade level English. 2. In the previous discussion of decentering, we noted that the original English or other source language form explaining a concept must be open to revision if the back- translation is poor. 3. The methodology of cross-cultural questioning implies pragmatic translation rather than the other three types of translation: aesthetic-poetic, ethnographic, and linguistic. 4. Multiple methods and multiple criteria for equivalence of source and target versions to demonstrate workable translation are possible. In addition to these basic rules, I strongly recommend also using a qualitative data collection method like the pre-test method. Such data must reflect subject’s words or feelings regarding the translated materials in order to convey the detailed nuances of the target language. It has been proven that back-translation is an effective technique, but it is most effective when used in conjunction with the pretest method. Thus, for a future study I propose that repeated pre-testing methods be utilized in order to increase the accuracy of translation. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 7 -► Translation (original English into Japanese) a. Two translators w ork independently. b. T ranslation com m ittee generates first draft o f J-E SP. Prelim inary fie ld -te st I I Conform ation com m ittee T he m ain purpose o f this committee is to check w hether back-translated ESP can convey subtle nuances th at the origin al ESP has. B ack-translation (Japanese into English) a. Two new translators independently back-translate. b. B ack-translation com m ittee generates first back-translation. Com parison o f translation and back-translation a. E quivalency com m ittee compares item s. b. O riginal English ESP items are revised, if deem ed problematic. Items revised If som e meaning differences are found, repeat steps above for items to be revised. I :-tn \ par I is r I Final field test Figure 2. Process of T ranslation for the Future Study Through this research, it has been suggested that minimizing the difference of nuances existing between two languages is the most important factor in a successful translation. This researcher proposes that the addition of two procedures to the process mentioned in Table l(see table 1 on page 19) will allow for greater success in the translations. A preliminary field-test after each finished translation would help to eliminate discrepancies in nuance or differences of meaning between the original ESP and the translated Japanese version (see Figure 2). And the addition of a conformity committee after the preliminary field-testing would minimize problems existing between the original ESP and the Japanese version of the ESP draft This committee would be composed of the same members as the equivalency committee, and would include some cultural experts. If these two procedures are not used, the equivalency committee could be forced to perform a major revision before starting the back-translation in order to minimize differences in nuance. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 8 Furthermore, the repetition of a major revision without the reflecting data from participants would make it difficult to perceive these differences of nuance. For these reasons, these two procedures should be added to the translation process in future studies. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 9 References American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication Manual of American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ayres, A. J. (1972). Southern California Sensory Integration Tests. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Ayres, A. J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Ayres, A. J. H989). Sensory integration and praxis tests. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Benson, J., and Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 36 (12), 789-800. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1 13). 185-216. Brislin, R. W. (1973). Questionnaire wording and translation. In R. W. Brislin, W. J. Lonner, and R. M. Thorndike (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods (pp. 32-58). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brumback, R. A., and Weinberg, W. A. (1990). Pediatric behavioral neurology: An update on the neurologic aspects of depression, hyperactivity, and learning disabilities. Neurologic Clinics. 8 (3), 677-703. Cermak, S. A. (1991). Somatodyspraxia. In A. G. Fisher, E. A. Murray, and A. C. Bundy. (Eds.), Sensory integration: Theory and practice (pp. 137-168). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company. Ciesielski, K. T., Harris, R. J., Hart, B., and Pabst, H. F. (1997). Cerebral hypoplasia and frontal lobe cognitive deficits in disorders of early childhood. Neurophvchologia. 35 (5), 643-655. Courchesne, E. (1997). Brain, cerebellar and limbic neuroanatomical abnormalities in autism. Cognitive neuroscience. 7. 269-278. Cronin, A. F. (1996). Psychosocial and emotional domains of behavior. In J. Case-Smith, A. S. Allen, and P. N. Pratt (Eds.), Occupational therapy for children (3rd ed.) (pp. 387-429). St. Louis: Mosby. Hynd, W. G., Semrud-Clikeman, M„ and Lyytinen, H. (1991). Neuropsychological foundation of learning disabilities: Brain imaging in learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc. Jahoda, G. (1992). Foreword. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, M. H. Segall, and P. R. Dasen(Eds.), Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (pp. 10-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 0 Johnson, C. (1996). A study of a pilot sensory history questionnaire using contrasting groups. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Kemper, T. L., and Bauman, M. L. (1993). The contribution of neuropathologic studies to the understanding of autism. Behavioral neurology. 1 1 (1), 175-187. Kindaichi, H. (1991). 0 'fcMCD&W. [The characteristics of the Japanese language]. Tokyo, NHK Books. LaCroix, J. E. (1993). A study of content validity using the sensory history questionnaire. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. LaCroix, J. E., Johnson, C., and Parham, L. D. (1997). The development of a new sensory history: The Evaluation of Sensory Processing. Sensory Integration Special Interest Section Quarterly. 20 (1), 3-4. Lotspeich, L. J., and Ciaranello, R. D. (1993). The neurobiology and genetics of infantile autism. International review of neurology. 35. 87-129. March, R. M. (1988). The Japanese negotiator: Subtlety and strategy beyond Western logic. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Matsuda, S., Wen, T. C., Morita, F., Otsuka, H., and Igase, K. (1996). Interleukin-6 prevents ischemia-induced learning disability and neuronal and synaptic loss in gerbils. Neuroscience Letters. 204. 109-112. McDermott, A. N., and Palchanes, K. (1992). A process for translating and testing a quantitative measure for cross-cultural nursing research. Journal of New York State Nurses Association. 23 14). 12 - 15. Morita, Y. (1998). 0 [The idea of the Japanese people and the expression of the Japanese language]. Tokyo, Chuou Shinsyo Inc. Mumford, D. B., Tareen, I. A. K., Bajwa, M. A. Z., Bhatti M. R., and Karim R. (1991). The translation and evaluation of an Urdu version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Archives of Psychiatry Scandinavia. 83. 81-85. Munet-Vilaro, F., and Egan, M. (1990). Reliability issues of the Family Environment Scale for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research. 39 (41. 244-247. Pandey, R., Mandal, M. K., Taylor, G. J., and Parker, J. D. (1996). Cross-cultural alexithymia: Development and validation of Hindi translation of the 20-item Toronto Alexithvmia Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 52 (2). 173-176. Parham, L. D., and Mailloux, Z. (1996). Sensory integration. In J. Case-Smith, A. S. Allen, and P. N. Pratt (Eds.). Occupational therapy for children (3rd ed.) (pp. 307-356). St. Louis: Mosby. Parham, L. D., LaCroix, J. E„ Johnson, C., Mailloux, Z., and Roley, S. (1997). Evaluation of Sensory Processing manual. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 51 Phillips, L. R., Luna de Hernandez, L, and Torres de Ardon, E. (1994). Focus on psychometrics strategies for achieving cultural equivalence. Research in Nursing and Health. 17.149-154. Rapin, I. (1997). Autism: Current concept. The New England Journal of Medicine, 337. (2), 97-104. Rovinelli, F. J., and Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal for Educational Research. 2.49-60. Sechrest, L., Fay, T. L., and Zaidi, S. M. H. (1972). Problems of translation in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 3 (1), 41-56. Sugihara, M. (1995). Syouni sagyou-ryouhou no sanjyunen to kongo. OT Journal. 20, (4), 305-312. Tomita, T. (1992). [The basic knowledge of the Japanese grammar]. Tokyo, Bonjin Book Inc. Tsunoda, R. and Keene, D. (1958). In t. 0 ^ S n [Sources of Japanese tradition volume I: Introduction to Asian civilizations]. New York: Columbia University Press. Weiss, G., and Hechtman, L. T. (1993). Hyperactive children grown up (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Wen, T. C., Matsuda, S., Yoshimura, H., Kawabe, T., and Sakanaka, M. (1995). Ciliary neurotrophic factor prevents ischemia-induced learning disability and neuronal loss in gerbils. Neuroscience Letters. 191. 55-58. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 2 APPENDIX A The Evaluation for Sensory Processing R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ESP 5 3 Evaluation of Sensory Processing R esearch Version 3 Instructions: P lea se read ea ch question carefully and an sw er each a s accurately and honestly a s you can. Indicate only one answ er for each question by checking the appropriate box, using the key below: A = Always, 0 = Often, S = Som etim es, R = Rarely, N = Never. N/A = Not applicable. The key is also printed on the first page of the questionnaire. P lea se keep in mind that w e are trying to find out which of th ese qu estions pick up on unusual behaviors, and which o n es relate to behaviors that many children dem onstrate. Your honest answ er, therefore, is very important to us. None of the questions are intended to be "trick" questions. Som etim es parents are not sure when to check "Never" versu s "N/A." The N/A option should only be used if the child has never b een exp osed to the situation in question. For exam ple, for the item "Is your child bothered by loud background noise such a s construction work nearby or sou n d s of machinery operating?" the N/A resp o n se should be checked only if the child h as never b een exp osed to background n o ise s such as construction work or machinery operating. If you are not sure of the m eaning of a particular item, or if you are unsure of how to answ er it. p lease call the primary investigator. Dr. Diane Parham, at the University of Southern California, for clarification. S h e can be reached by telephone at 213-342-2879. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 4 ESP Research Version 3 A A LW A Y S C hild’s nam e O O F T E N C hild's age vears m onths S S O M E T IM E S N am e o f ad u lt com pleting this form R RARELY ' Relationship to child N N EV E R Date N/A N O T A P P L IC A B L E ITEM 1 A | O | S I R ~ i N I N / ~ Auditory System I. | Is your child bothered by or fearful o f the sound made by a toilet flushing? 1 2 Does your child startle or become distressed by loud or unexpected sounds? 3. Does your child have trouble understanding what other people mean when thev say something? 4. Does your child seem to hear sounds that other people tend to not notice? S. Do you notice your child being bothered by any sounds which occur during daily life tasks, such as tasks of personal hygiene, dressing, eating, home making, school work, play/leisure? 6. Is your child bothered by loud background noise such as construction work nearby or sounds of machinery operating? 7. Does your child seem to have trouble remembering what is said to him/her? 8. Is your child bothered by any household or ordinary sounds, such as squeaky shoes, the vacuum, the blow dryer, doe barking, etc.? 9. Does your child seem to understand oral directions? 1 i 10 Does your child fail to act upon a request to do something, or fail to understand directions? 1 1 Does your child respond negatively to loud noises as in running away, crving. or holding hands over ears? 12 Is your child distracted by subtle sounds, such as fluorescent light bulbs, heaters, fans, refrigerators? 13 Is your child bothered by the sound o f the vacuum? 14 Is your child bothered by the sound made by certain accessories such as bracelets and necklaces? 15 Does your child appear to not hear certain sounds? 16 Is your child distracted by sounds not normally noticed by other people? 17 Does your child mind the sound o f the hairdryer? 18 Does your child mind the sound o f squeaky shoes? 19 Is your child frightened of sounds which do not usually convey alarm to other children the same age? 20 Does your child hear sounds other people don't notice or have trouble tuning out certain sounds, such as. a clock or watch ticking? 21 Does your child ask others not to talk or sing or make noise? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 5 ITEM A 1 0 S R ! N i N /A Does your child appear to make noise for noise's sake? ! 23 Compared to other children the same age does your child seem to under react to loud noises? i i 24 Does your child have trouble interpreting the meaning o f simple or common words? i i i 25 Does your child respond negatively or seem bothered by unexpected sounds or noises, as in running away, crying, o r holding hands over ears? 26 Does your child seem confused as to the direction from where sounds are coming? 27 Does your child have difficulty paying attention when there are other noises nearby? 28 Is your child easily distracted by irrelevant or background noises such as a lawn mower outside, children talking in the back o f the room, crinkling paper, air conditioners, refrigerators, fluorescent lights? 29 Does your child seem too sensitive to sounds? 30 Does your child ask "what?" a lot, or need to have words, especially directions repeated? i 31 Does your child like to sing or dance to music? Gustatory/ Olfactory System l. Does your child gag, vomit, or complain of nausea when smelling odors such as soap, perfume, or cleaning products? . 2 Does your child respond to odors that other people do not notice? 3. Does your child complain that foods are too bland o r refuse to eat bland foods? 4. Does your child season his/her food heavily or indicate a desire for heavy seasoning, such as excessive salt, ketchup, o r other spices? 5. As an infant did your child resist eating when new flavors o f pureed baby foods were introduced? 6. . Does your child prefer very salty foods? 7. Does your child complain o f being hurt by a taste or a smeil? 8. Does your child like unusual combinations o f flavors such as ketchup with ice cream o r salt in orange Juice? 9. Does your child like to taste non-food items such as glue or paint? to Does your child gag when smelling food odors such as cooked broccoli or garlic? tl Does your child gag when anticipating an unappealing food such as cooked spinach? 12 Does your child gag at a sound associated with an unpleasant odor such as the sound o f a can of cat food being opened 13 Does your child prefer to eat spicy foods? 14 Does your child prefer to eat sour foods or candies? 15 Is your child distracted by smells on his/her hands? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 6 | ITEM A O S 1 R 1 N ! N/A Proprioception Svstem t. Does your child grasp objects so tightly that it is difficult to use the object? ! ! Does your child-tire easily after sitting or lying in the same position for awhile? 1 1 3. Does your child grind his/her teeth? i 4. Does your child seem driven to seek activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, lifting. and jumping? 1 i 1 5. Does your child climb high into trees, jump o ff tail walls or furniture, etc.? 1 6. Does your child tike giving bear hugs? i 7. Does your child seem unsure o f how far to raise o r low er the body during movement such as sitting down or stepping over an object? 1 ! 1 i r 8. Does your child not notice falling? 9. Does your child like to be under heavy blankets, covers or pillows? 10. Does your child tend to break toys? 11. Does your child chew on pens, straws, etc.? 12. D oes your child grasp objects so loosely that it is difficult to use the object? 13. Does your child chew on nonfood objects? 14. Does your child seem to exert too much pressure for the task, for example, walks heavily, slams doors, o r presses too hard when using pencils or cravons? r s . D oes your child jump a lot? ! i 16. Does your child have difficulty playing with animals appropriately, such as petting them with too much force? f ■ ■ ! 17. Does your child have difficulty positioning him/herself in a chair? 18. Does your child frequently hit, bump, and/or push other children? , 19. Does your child seem generally weak? 1 20. Compared with other children the same age, does your child seem to seek out activities that involve jumping, crashing into things, pushing, pulling or falling? ■ 21. Does your child like getting bear hugs? I ! 22. Does your child taste or chew on toys, clothes, or other objects more than other children? i ! 23. Does your child crave hugging o r rough playing? j ! 24. Does your child like to chew on hard candy? 1 ! 25. Does your child have difficulty sirring erect, or choose to lie down instead o f sitting up? i Tactile System l. Does your child dislike going barefoot, not like to take his/her shoes o ff or insist on always wearing shoes? t 2 Does it bother your child to play games with bare feet? 1 3. Is your child irritated by the feel o f certain clothing? f 4. Does your child pull away from light touch? i 5. Does your child seem to lack the normal awareness o f being touched? 1 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 7 | I IT E M A 0 S I R ! N • N/A 6 i Does your child resist or dislike wearing clothing o f certain textures? 1 i 1 : 7. Does your child react negatively to the feel o f new clothes? | : 8. Does your child tend to prefer to w ear long sleeve shins and long pants regardless o f the weather, for instance prefers to wear long sleeves even when it is warm outside? I i i 9. Does your child seem excessively ticklish? I 10. Does your child like to cuddle up with a blanket or stuffed animal or special pillow? I 1 11. Does your child enjoy tickling as a form o f play? ! I 12. Does your child avoid playing with “messy“ things such as finger paint, mud. sand. Blue, slitter, or clay? I 1 ! t 13. Does your child show an unusual dislike for having his/her hair combed, brushed or styled? I | 14. Do rough bedsheets bother your child? i l 15. Does wearing tunleneck shins bother your child? 16. Does your child prefer to touch rather than be touched? : ! 17. Does your child seem driven to touch different textures? 18. Does your child prefer to go barefoot? : i 19. Does your child refuse to wear hats, sunglasses, or other accessories? ; 1 20. Does wearing fuzzy shins bother your child? - i i 21. Does your child dislike wearing pants o r complain about the feel o f them brushing aaainst his/her leas? . | 22. Does your child tend to wear coats or sweaters when they are not needed? ! 23. Does your child appear to lack the normal awareness o f being touched? * 1 1 24. Does your child prefer the textures o f certain clothing? i 25. Does your child overreact to minor injuries? i 26. Does your child complain about irritating bumps on the bedsheets? I 27. Does it bother your child to have his/her finger or toe nails cut? ; 28. Does your child struggle against being held? I 29. Does your child dislike playing games with his/her bare feet? i ! 30. Does your child have a tendency to touch things constantly? ; 31. Does your child dislike getting his/her hands messy or ask to wash hands when using things like Blue and glitter? i 1 i ; 32. Does your child avoid o r dislike playing with gritty things? 1 | 33. Do tags or collars on clothing bother your child? i i 34. Does your child demonstrate an aversion to any form o f clothing? I 35. Does your child prefer cenain textures o f clothing or particular fabrics? ; 36. Does it bother your child to have his/her face touched? i 37. Does it bother your child to have his/her face washed? 1 i 38. Does your child object to being touched by familiar people? | 39. Does it bother your child if he/she can not see who is touching him/her when among familiar people at home or school? i i i 40. Does the feel o f new clothes bother your child? 1 41. Does your child resist or dislike wearing short sleeved shirts o r short pants? i 42. Does your child seem to lack awareness o f being touched by others? : I 1 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 8 I ITEM A 0 S ! R 1 \ ‘ \7 A 43. Does your child ask you to take the tags and labels out o f clothing or only wear clothes which have had the tags and labels removed? 1 i ! 44. Is your child irritated by tags on clothing? I ! 45. Is your child bothered by hair brushing against his/her face? I 46. Does your child dislike the feeling o f certain clothing? 1 47. Does your child have an unusually high tolerance for pain? 1 48. Does your child demonstrate an excessive need to touch? ! 49. Does your child display an unusual need for touching certain textures, surfaces, objects or toys? ! I 50. Does your child startle easily when being touched unexpectedly? ! 1 51. Does wearing fuzzy socks bother your child? 1 ! ! 52. Does your child dislike eating messy foods with his/her hands? 53. Does your child tend to feel pain less than others? 54. Does it bother your child when a familiar person at home or school is close by? 55. Does your child avoid touching different textures? 56. Does your child appear to resist eating certain foods because o f their texture? 57. Does your child strongly dislike being tickled? 58. Does your child avoid foods o f certain textures? 59. Does your child avoid getting his/her hands in finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, glue, etc.? i 60. Does your child seek messy play activities? 61 Does it bother your child to have his/her hair cut? 1 Vestibular System I. Does your child rock while sitting? i J 2. Does your child seem excessively fearful o f movement, as in going up and down stairs o r riding swings, teeter totters, slides, o r other playground equipment? ! 1 ! i i 1 3. Does your child get nauseous or vomit due to movement experiences? 4. Does your child like to swing? 5. Does your child demonstrate distress when he/she is moved or riding on moving equipment? 6. Does your child’ s head move along with his/her eyes in activities such as reading, following along with a parent reading or playing a computer game? 7. Is your child frequently and easily confused about his/her locarion for example, gets lost in stores, or can't find the way to a familiar classroom? 8. Does your child have good balance? 9. Does your child have to exert more effort to move than others, tire easily from exertion and or require more.sleep than others? 10. Does your child avoid balance activities such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? 11. T s your child fearful o f heights, such as escalators, glass elevators, stairs, etc.? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 9 i IT E M A . 0 S 1 R I N i N/A 12 Does your child like fast movements, such as being whirled about or tossed in the air bv an adult? i i i 13. Does your child like to climb very high? 1 ! 1 - 4 Does your child like fast spinning carnival rides, such as merry-go-rounds? ! 15. Is your child fearful o f activities which require good balance? 1 1 16. When your child shifts his/her body does he/she fall out o f his chair? ! ! 17. Is your child unable to catch him/herself when failing? i ! i i 18. Does your child seem to not get dizzy when others usually do? 1 19. Does your child get car sick? I 20. Does your child seem generally weak? 1 21. Does your child spin and whirl more than other children? t 22. Does your child rock himself/herself when stressed? i i 23. Does your child like to be inverted o r tipped upside down or enjoy doing activities that involve inversion, such as hanging upside down or doing somersaults? 24. Is your child fearful o f swinging o r bouncing, o r was fearful o f this as an infant? 1 ! 25. Does your child experience discomfort, nausea, or dizziness following movement, especially rotation? 1 26. Does your child tend to need movement in order to “get going," for example, after waking up from a nap? 27. Does your child dislike sudden or quick movement such as suddenly stopping o r going over a bump while riding in the car? •28. Compared with other children the same age does your child seem to ride longer or harder on certain playground equipment for example, swing, merrv-go-round? 29. Does your child avoid rapid or spinning movement? 30. Is your child fearful o f activities in which he/she moves through space? 31. Does your child demonstrate distress when his/her head is in any other position than upright or vertical such as having the head tilted backward or upside down? 32. Does your child react negatively to, dislike, appear threatened by, or exhibit a fear reaction to movement? 33. Does your child enj'oy excessive spinning and twirling? 1 » Visual System 1 . Does your child have trouble telling the difference between printed figures that appear similar, for example, differentiating b with p, o r + ■ with x? 2. Is your child sensitive to or bothered by light, especially bright light fblinks, squints, cries, o r closes eyes, etc.)? 3. When looking at pictures, does your child focus on patterns or details instead o f the main pictures? 4. Is your child able to look at something far away? 5. Does your child have difficulty keeping his/her eyes on the task or activity at hand? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission 6 0 i 1 ITEM A O S i R ! V : N7A 6. Does your child have trouble maintaining his/her usual focus on one task or object for verv lone? 1 f ; t i i 7. Does your child rub his/her eyes, complain o f headaches, or have eyes which w ater after readme or looking at books? ! 8. Does your child have difficulty with visually focusing on things far away? i 9. Does your child become easily distracted by visual stimuli? 1 ! i 10. Does your child have trouble locating things laying on top o f other things, especially things o f the same color, o r have trouble finding an object when it is amidst a eroup o f other things? i i 11. Does your child close one eye and/or tip his/her head back when looking at something or someone? 12. Does your child have difficulty with unusual visual environments such as a bright colorful room or a dimly lit room? 1 13. Does your child have difficulty with visually focusing on things close? 14. Does your child have difficulty controlling eye movements during activities such as following objects like a ball with eyes, keeping place while reading, or copying from blackboard to the desk? 15. Compared to other children the same age does your child seem to be easily distracted by visual stimuli? 16. Does your child have trouble following objects with his/her eyes? 17. Does your child have difficulty naming, discriminating, or matching colors, shapes o r sizes? 18. Did your child make reversals in words o r letters when writing o r copying or read w ords backwards (such as reading saw for was) after the first grade? 19. Does your child lose his/her place on a page while reading, copying, solving problems, or performing manipulations? 20. In school does your child have difficulty shifting gaze from the board to the paper when copying from the board? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 1 APPENDIX B The Japanese Version of the Evaluation for Sensory Processing R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 2 Evaluation of Sensory Processing 8/nrX h) Research Version 3 ( l £ 3 ® : &Kisi£«fc< m/u-e* &<»&=?i ^ i ' c iM fc -e M R sy iE S iic fc g T [£ £ 3 0 ^ 0 * IZ L/-5 U * # ( tT < t '. S«K (±JU T O il U t t o A = t\‘ ^ : fo 0 = U £ U £ S = < tm ££ R = ® o f c ( c * : t \ N = So^<75:U N /A = #& £ s ^ K ( i « r a a o s « i [ c * b ^ f f i U T & y t t . @ ^ i r3 P £ x # ! & u T < 7 c £ u 0 C O f ^ H i, £ 0 e fc 5 & fr;& # '# ^ 0 ^ £ t> [C # W 0 t> 0 a \ - t t l i t > ( C —l&tticj?. f c ^ / u 0 m ^ € I E i S [ C g ^ T t '3 t * f < C < i : « f ^ m g T - r . £ f c , »rp1 ( c ( i E A U T < X £ $ 5 ^ t ) ^ « h ^ - r « f c 5 * : r t # ( i # S t i T U S - t ± A / , r£t)fc< fc:{,\j £ m W & l <D£%z>£MAj-?Jz^frt>fi'y [C < (,\t> 0£ * 5 jO 'fcU ft*-ti-A r. f c ^ S ^ # K H f C * * J ;3 & :K3 E f : : - £ f c$5 2 E ;K .T l\£ : U i£ £ -0 * r # ■ r < f i < o ^ # 7 a : W € 5 « s * f y ^ - r * '. j < f c i '5 « H c § x .s * £ \ 1 ^ 1 1 0 T | ^ ^ j [z D 3 U £ t t ( t T < 7 c£ L \„ KH0®i5fo&*«f:< Univeristy ofSouthernCalifornia 0 Dr. DianeParham S"CCT3$&<7!r$(A„ flScSrll-^-fix 213 - 342 - 2879 T t o R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 3 ESP v IP—^*JK^3JK i E A # £ : _____________________ : ________________ f £ A H : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A = l r ' O t 0 = U i U £ R = £ > o fc fC & V ' N = I£ o f c < & V ' N /A = i m s s m @ A O S R N N /A l as-y-S A S u u ^ - f 2. f e y ^ A t t , A # * # , £ fc tt^ # !U iiV '# fc # E ® K R v 'fc » K iK U fc 5 i - 5 c 5 3. & ^ P £ A « :. A*sW ofccfc3i«fc36»& *V'-e. 4. * s y -$ A f± , 5 * # a s M c * .5 J : 5 ' e 1 -tf». 5. * 5 ^ 5 A f± , 4 3 ffiS ^ » ® S # * ifo fl= * iS a R K # o c .fc v £ # * . , I f . JfeBl. fcV 'o)tB ® fl«J*tfl3t£flf«)StfiK :acS#Sr5 5$36s5 < f c 5 K iS v '^ i-^ , n i t k f c h Z 5 5 9 £1-rt>o 7. i s P S A I i . ® fr * if c c i:& j^ T fc < © fc £ R M S & 5 « ^ ? 1 - r t* . 8. j S ^ A f i . $£<£>=¥—=¥—& 5 ! 1. F9'f-Y-<0&. * © ? * * . 5 J*rfc£\ BfiTBj*. 9. P ^ < o J t ^ S : t » J ? * A tS » T ? fr 'r v 'S J :3 T ft7 ii. 10. S £ t a f c £ i : £ t © i I « j K y » 5 J : i : t e ^ U f c ! J . t%m& m m T 5 Z . t £rAB$C U fc * ? UTfe-tT^. 11. f e ^ S A t i . A ^ ^ t c ^ L T . afcfcf5, & < . 5 S f S ^ L S i- J ^ o 12. j 3 ^ $ A & , (& ^M ) <©#. if, $ * l£ 1 -3 K 13. f e ^ $ A i ± , 5 5 14. f e - ^ A f i . / i / X i / y S ^ y ^ u x T iir 'c D T ^ -fe iM J £ 5 5 £ j 5 * * 9 £1"5A A = V ' o f c 0 = U £ U £ R=if>-o/b{iI.£CV'' N = £ o / c < f t V ' N /A = 2 N £ i§ R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 4 3 1 S A O s R N N /A 15. :fe ^ $ A { £ . 5 f 9 16. 5 t ^ . 17. —T 18. fc ^ -S A tt* ab6Sdpa.y^ra.y U J r fjK 19. f e ^ £ A f £ . 20. fe -? $ A f± . 4 K t t . JSS B f i t 55 c fcf? 21. f e ^ £ A f ± . flfeO A K K U & U fcU , tt& S ltofctK » < 'C f c * H £ : L ftV'J; 5 ic M t? £ .b & & ' O 22. J; 5 9 23. *5-?-$aw u m ^ < D i \ k ( D ^ t ^ x , * L -cfcifcA m V'-fc 5 tr't'&s. 24. f e ^ $ A t ± . 3 £ ft* . t u n * 9 25. fe^ -S A H u ^JHWfcVvgFfc K { 4 S # T ? a t f iB U f c ? ) . ^ 7 ? ^ ^ $ < " i: g o f c < J : 5 f c v 'F )fc o 7 ti9 . 1"?K 26. *^ F -$A l± . # o i - 5 * ‘|B i!6 S fc^ e » * < -C J g a i-5 r :4 :iS fe5 * i-)ii . 27. f e ^ ^ A t i . te O f t^ a s f fi^ U T V 'S E r fc iM ^ S w fc t fjS L V 'T H - ?K 28. 2f— S P M © ^ - 5 o ^ # f c - f e < Q :feU *x.*K * T 3 y , ?frj$/¥, ®5fefcT£ir' o f c £ 5 & § 5 ^ f t v \ 4 > L < k L £ i~ ;zK 29. feT -S A iiS ftW fc S c iR fr s < f c 5 7?-f t A 30. f e ^ S A t t , r{5T?j 1 > h t> t£ '/'b W $ T :% f£ ''': Z b f r & < 9 31. f c ^ £ A & . 5 fto fc$ » o fc!J l-S © !& s$ F # T ? -f-* . A = lA O % 0 = U £ U £ N = S o f c < 4 V \ N /A R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 5 m s A O S R N N /A 1. 5" i t #7ic. A t i K j j - t -5 1 VfX-tc < 0 . < 1:35 U t 9 1"-5 C t < 0 iztib * . 2. 3o^ $A ,f± . £ o f f «?1 ij 4. 3 H ^ A f£ > L-7t*K t> L < f£ , i M c i g . 5. 3 5 ^ £ /U £ , T S i U f c i # . L 7t^„ 6. 3 s ^ £ /U £ , 7. 3 5 ^ $ A ,fi. 8. **?■ $/,«:. >r*f-*r y r S r T ^ X ^ U — A fcjW t/t *A — X fc itS r iP x .^ i:V' 5 < f c 5 & ^ f r o f c M ^ ; b ^ < 0 [ S £ ^ £ 1 - ; 6 > ,, 9. 3 s ^ £ / U f . fgSfM . $Fgr-tri-^. i~ -5 c * 9 g - t f r o 11. 3 3 ^ -g /u H . l i I L T B i # ^ ^ J: feL -fc*9, Pgitfci- ^ ^ * 9 £ i" J K 12. 3 3 ^ £ / U ± , & £ 3 5 L / t *9, m tti~^ > r £/$!'£>!9 £ i~ /^ = 13. 3 5 ^ £ A « u 14. & ¥ £ / , & . is . 3 5 ^ £ / U ; £ 1. 3 5 ^ £ ,U £ £> £t9^ 3& <#l£§-5<D -f?. f e ^ v ^ c - C v ^ ' o f c e i : ffftv v e -fjK 2. 3 5 ^ $ /U i. b {i*F ><rai5S^1?M o/fc!9, M f c ^ o f c ^ u fc ffe . J£*l. ^ '< fc 5 A=V'o*> 0 = L l£ L I£ i:'# R N = £ o f c < & V ' N /A =#f£S R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 6 m s A O S R N N /A 4. # - * \ 3fo3S-5. ? + > 7 Y 5 i tct±V' F>tu£v''<f: 5 5. Ufc»K i& V'®-*»S^*if<D-ba* ? > 6. f±. 7. & o f c f> . # f e t f c i l - f c 9 fcV'-3fc»f^<oraK:. ET©< £>Vjff< b fc*5fS < bfct? i ‘tU£V'V''5K ( io # * 9 b&V'<fc 5 7ri"jK 9. 3oir£/u&. K # '< —. 1£& H <DTfC#9fc;4s * 3 10. f c ^ £ /v f £ . 11- 3 3 ^ £ A f£ . ^ X f o - T f e i r ' ^ r n i ^ - f ^ o 12. 8R & 0K S-5O T ?. 5 ^ 1“^ . 13. is ^ $ A ,{ ± . 1 9 14. } 3 ^ £ A { £ , * j S S : f f 5 I S f ! : » f ^ R : * S r A i x i - r 5 c f c ^ & 9 * i - ) ^ . 0 I*.Jf, M b C ^ f c t b F T S v O fc B R ttfc tb & b < } i. 3 > £ H £ 5 bgtz.&V'fi&frtj-f&tc1 ! ) b £ 1 * /5 \ 15. < £ < 16. ^<y h S rB T 3 £ )iS 5 i:# K :fe* ijR :* S :A ti.i-S p 5 f c ^ o f c <t 5 ic® fyi tmmcm&z tfimis's'-ei-fr., 17. :fe ^ £ /W ;b 18- t e o ^ S r U T U f i i p v ' f c ! } . ^ o ^ o f c * 9 . ifbfcUb 19. 3 o ^ P £ A 4 i. H ^ b < f f 5 <£ 20. ^ > 7 ° b 7 t « i . mc&o ^ o fc » j» # b f c * K ?[v'fc*J, M * i.5 £ f c € ^ if S © & 3 f t » T 8 g b - c ^ .5 J: 5 U i -# 1 . 21. 22. { fe < W £ c t!9 ^ fc«j, p fc A tb C i^ h > o fc « j^ '5 i:fc * s& ' 3 * i ' ^ . 23. |& £ b » & tu fc !j5 i!o g V 'ifitf£ r t_5 £ i : £ N b # »)& :■& A = V v o & 0 = U ; £ U £ S = b £ b ' £ R = £ > o fc fb & V ' N = 4 o f c < 4 ^ N /A = ^ ® ? 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 7 m 0 A O s R N N /A 25. :i3 F $ A f± . *oi-< 'K affioT V '5035S *|L .)i»ofc?j» -5 © £:£?£? C £ ^ £> < 9 l. * 5 F £ A f± . % {8fc<£:®V'TV'/ba£ • ? 2. 3 o F £ A ( £ . 'O I z t f r . 3. #^OJiROSS»T?>r 4. fe F S A H u g < M tL F 3tL fcfcttt? # :^ [ C 5 fc-**5 :: £ # & 9 5. * 5 F £ A t t , # ilfc# :R :tt& ix -c^ # )6 » * V 'r:fciS feS J :5 T ? i-3 9 » . 6. fe^FSAH :. f e 5 i # O K f 5 C ^ i i 4 5 o f c i ) . « g t& 3 * L £ -frA jK 8. * s f s a «:. ^ a s i a ^ v ' B i s t t s ^ B f f c a s s * ^ . fcfc * 9 9. :£ F $ A f£ . <1~<'£tb5<7){cisd^fc@c^&<£5^1~;*K 11. * 5 F £ A t i. & & tj-C < T < '2 < D & fi? g 'e i‘fr. 12. * 5 F $ A { ± . »S, «K «S, 7 A o 7 t i<79 £$fcas i9 ^ -f-^ . 13. * 5 F £ A t t . H Sr< 7 * 7 '> £ t W c *K i4 . * s f $ a b : . r f c r f o u f c ^ - y s : j * a s » ) * i - ^ . 15. * 5 F £ A » . ^ — N y ^ y ^ O J ffiS r ^ S O S r J iiS tj^ i-^ . 16. : £ F £ A { £ . 17. 3 o F £ A t e u V '5 V '5 S o fc# M '9 W ,6 c o ^ ! 9fcV,'i:V''5 5iV '' SfcjfcSr^i" <£ 5 Trfsa*. i s . * 5 F £ a & . a £ t e * 9 f c a s « j s iT f i» . 19. fe -F S A tt. # F f > / 7 A T * - f e i J - y - * £ £ # f c o f f 5 : : 4 : £ ^ * 9 A=lAOfc 0 = U £ U £ S = £ # < * f# R = N/A R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 8 m s A O s R N N/A 21. : } 3-?£Af£. < 0 £flb5 S -3fc»K 23. *-f-SAfcHu «M L & *L -C V '5 i:V'5# 3 i© lSftis^ftTV'5 i 5 ' e f 24. *s?-$AHu 25. f t ^ A t t . t.iofcUfcyTas^’ fc^ffSKiSJESU*-#^. 26. *3 ^$A{£> '>— y t !/^ 5 £ ^ ¥ : £:'B'V''£t'5 K 27. iS^SAtt* 28. ^^tb-5 Ci:fcMb'C5 Sv^i/L^r^U^1_^= 29. 30. jo ^ £ A & . ^ £M 3 £Ki&oTV^cV'tV'5 5 £v'&jfc£:^L'£'f 31. fe^F§Af4. ^sffH-SOSriaibiSofc ofct? 33. :fc^£Att, W D*y (.^/U) * ?m < D 3 bZ>m$:m''9tLi-fr' 34. S>SffiojffifcjsfUj»SSS^i-niis&9 * i'^ . 35. *5 T-£Af±» < 0 36. io^F^Afi. M{cMtiF,tL5 »$r^ J!9 37. *5 ^-£Af±. 38. *5 ^£A & . J:<aoTV'5 A K n?>{>tti& iv5 ci:S:j»*S5 * i-^ . 39. *H=-$ABu <&l'DtcAtc% b's'Sfe. HtfBfl-Srtto TV ''3 ; 6 i:b ;6 i F > & t'''2 :. 40. jsT-SAtt. SfbV'J3 BO«S«iS:flb&s*?*i-^. 41. 3 3^ £ A tt. JSftUfci? 1 ^ 1“ 42. *s^$Afc&. ffioAfJ:Mtve>tuT»:W^v^V'5 £5 *££#&>? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 9 m s A o s R N N / A 43. J E f c o v v O ' 5 9 < f c 5 ic M /u td U . fcfc 1 " T ? K :® to -C £ > 5 J !R U :a » * f* V '5 J: 5 44. :&-?•£ AH u W n f i f (1®W) 45. 4 3 ^ / U i . £ 1 - /K 46. i s ^ S A / t t . 47. * 3 T -£ A ,tt. 48- 49- : i3 ^ £ A ,* ± , t k 4 > U < tt5 c ^ % jB itJ fc V ''^ V '5 50. 51. ^ * o fc a r F S r f ± < < 0 S r illb f lS « j * i- ! ^ . 52. 53. ftfecA J: 9 54. g c ^ # $ r C \ W liX T V '«A T :ii£^F5C fcS:j9b6S?)*-i-35». 55. S o f c ^ » ? ) < 0 4 > 0 K : » * L 5 0 * j 8 tt J : 5 4 : U S i - ^ . 56. f e S A ^ W S r - t o j g j t t o f c f e ^ s o f c f i g i S r ^ - J : ? ^ 57. < i- < '& t L 5 0 S r ^ # R : f llG 6 S 5 ^ i- ^ . 59. $ ( c 7 - r y * ‘— ^ T > K «L » , * fi± . ifg. g S R M t if ■o< O^rjgft«fc 5 t: U i£ -ffr o 60. # - ? • $ / , » . 61. ® & L T f c 5 5 © & J * # 0 f i1 - j i» . l * y p $ / U £ . t - r ^ o 2. PfgM )_h»>T »J-$\ J £ b A ,C . ' > - y - « ® A 'C :jSA1 r. fc &iBJgfc:1®&ss c b&$> 'O l £ t f r o 3. ffijW ES& bT, B fc#jE W SL fc9i«»ti“« c 4 : i6 S & » j * i- ^ . 4. / y y n ^ ^ T r t ) ! 1. A = V '0 f c 0 = U i ' U £ s = b £ l £ % N = S o f c < f t t ' N / A = # ^ S R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 70 m s A O s R N N/A 5. © v 'T V 'S iE B rte J fe o fc ij. —A -CrJS^ i: v' O fc?g®rc? @ i: —*§tcM ^ 7. f f ljttf . m r i& o f c ^ K flttL T V '5 it^ t'5 ff< 0 ^ ! R irV 'o fc J : 5 f c M ^ tc . ^ L T § 1 < g2-OV'5«j3ffc:iBSL L’ CL^'^-f'TK 8. *^F-£A,J±, / < 7 > X S ^ V 'X 't J i i . 9. KfecDAi^ iiSbKOfc.XQ&Jjlsfttf’titZftb& fr o f c t j , -3fcffiSMag£frifc:»K 3*fcHU fl& <79A J: 9 < j « b o £51 I S ^ '^ fc o fc i? L S t ^ o 10. W a O S ^ k ^ 'fz y ) . £fcf±» 5 p F ,tr^V ''% ® ^r# V ''fci9 V' o t c ^ > 7 - < Z 3 V ' -5 11. jS^-gAsli. ^ —i:V 'o fc i^ v ^ o f c jf iv 'tt# ^ J F # -t? i-^ . 13. t T t > ^ i : r : 5 { : : ® ! 3 f c j 5 S J 3 ^ i - ^ . 14. j£¥£A,tiL* / y -= f—7 > K i ^ 'o f c . 3£<@feT5^S&iSHift©* i7. *-?-$*,&* <f£A,-ev^B^ ic W ^ ± ~ c W rt^ bifi’^g 'S .'tiP : 18. *5-T-$A,f±. flfeOA&siSFififcgSrlil-j-ia*^^. SSr@$*V'J:5 tr-T ^o 19. ¥fcfiBcfcrts&&£1"^. 20. * 3 *Jg© SS& £1-3lfo P ^ U < f r 5 < t 5 t r 1 - ^ o 21. <'3< '5@ t^ 5J: 5 * ? £ # « : £ < U £i- 22. X h i/X $ r£ b 5 lf. « 3 23. iS U tf e L f c tK i f c t t . j! £ M o ! 9 f c ^ t t f c > 9 , A = ^ o & 0 = U £ U £ R N = i o f c < 4 ^ N / A = # ^ R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 1 tm A 0 S R N N /A 24. M bZ tifc v, 4 > I X 5 W o f c r £ L / c ^ o 25. 4 # K :0 lE * £ ® ® £ ® fa c * $ fc P jg < * o fc > K a # a # L 7 cA 26. ©fl&fl*&Brt*S£«>fc£K. &£&tbJ:5 bi~Z1tibfcm& S r iM lt i- 5 < k 5 27. fe ^ £ A ,f± . W iLlf. * K S I - a T V '5 B n f c ^ j h * o f c 5 . itO iStfcg: ^ * 3 ^ x 7 c 9 i IX 28- fe-5& R . 29. I X f±®te>SS&&jg£f*£i-^. 30. 31. M /L ii\ s E « 2 f M £ * L 7 c 5 . 2 £ £ 5 3 7c A 7c t) 32. 2E S)tc^fbX . jK tfSofct). *5-&h,fc»K L7c Q t V'■ o 7c<fc 5 K S S ffifc S ic : 33. ia jg fc H o f c ij. « 9 ® U fc » ? 1 -5 # & 3 i& L * £ 1 -a i . i. Mz.it. r ^ j £ r& j x & t a j iX i <omm (D S loK .^ I ? 2. £ ^ £ / U 3 c 3fc, 4#K:?05V'36K:«[Sg. t > lX « c J: 5 t? 3. *feS:IlT V '5 l$ . 4. }3 ^ £ A ,& , H ^ < f c & 5 t l r t sJiXl§;1-7A 5. ^ w g 3 & 4 > ® M f c g ^ # b T 4 3 < © ^ 6. $>2fgjg. * fc J 4 ftfc S V 'I H l» 0 ^ ^ jM a # U T j3 < C i:is 7. £ ^ £ / U i , A ^ A f c ^ E f c ^ LfcSL B & c i - o f c ! ? , SStfeflF*. 7c Wi^'fc < 0 Lg.i-fr' 8. 3 t < ® t i t c : i S © ^ : £ r ^ ^ 5 i : i : { c S |S S ^ i 5 ^ - f - ^ 1 1 A=V'O fc 0=U£U£ S = t RN=iofc<4^ N/A=#^i R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 2 m s A O S R N N/A 10. W Z 'itd & n —#JLfcKv'T£>3#K 4 # & «*5|feK>T&5ICA4»fc^®lOiftasBV'Tfe5 c fc# itLV'fri-jK ll. *S7-£A,&. ^ (tta>) frB&fflVtcVm&WiZtcMiftc < y 12. B^5<fe4:»)ir»j(0»S^»BtV'HaMOfi5Mfci'ofcififit fctt^5ffi*W*3REEfc£KWSS> » > £-f-7K 13. iE < < 0«rO ^ »5£fcaq *L ^ -e+ ^ . 14. fc ^V'««Efr&&T?l&U8ctfTfc»K 1V' ofej: 5 ^r§l®trifi©S&^^:=r> h n — /Pl-^cD^gtt^Trl-jA, 15- gfc:&*.54&fc£5lc*CS:®te> 16. S-ei»Srit5;:i:as!lUV'T?-t^. 17. fe. JB . SWJUfc*K -i-V'^-Cfci? 18. /]'# & — 19. ^Ub&. & tt± M fc m A ,i£»9 (fflz.il. r # $ < j * r< $ # j) 19. fifeffrSrfrsffilfc. * < —5 ? < D E Z . £JLTV'Tbfcfra* £ £ < * 9 20. *H=-£X,f±. ^R TfitK o^Sr^U TV 'S^ J&E»*&/-Mc&£Sr f£-f C i: J 5 sil A=V'0«b 0 = U J b l J s = b £ l £ g R=tbofcl£t£V' N=£ofc<*V' N/A=2E&i§ R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 3 APPENDIX C Informed Consent for Interview of Field-Testing R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 4 Proposal #985029 Review Category: E INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD HEALTH RESEARCH ASSOCIATION AND INSTITUTIONAL REV IEW BOARD UNIVERSITY OF SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE Date: 04/29/98 To: T om ohiro Takahashi M aster o f Arts O ccupational Science & Therapy 1601 Amberwood Dr. #A South Pasadena, CA 91030 From: A ssist. Dean, Clinical Studies D arcy Spicer, M.D. T railer #25, Unit I 1200 N . State Street L os Angeles, CA 90033 0 — O ' - * 0 (213) 223-2340/2349 TITLE O F PROPOSAL: JA PA N E SE T R A N SLA T IO N O F T H E EV A LU A TIO N O F SENSO RY PR O C ESSIN G A ction Date: 4/28/98 Action Taken: A pproved Committee: Assist. Dean, Clinical Studies N ote: The protocol and informed consent were reviewed and APPROVED by Dr. Darcy Spicer, Assistant Dean for Clinical Studies, on April 28, 1998. A new application assigned Review Category E. (Research Committee Office #985029) You are authorized to conduct the research project as detailed in your protocol Japanese Translation of the Evaluation o f Sensory Processing dated 4/17/98. Any proposed changes in the research study must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the IRB before the change can be implemented. The only exception is a cliange necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the research subjects. In such a case, the IRB should be prom ptly informed o f the change following its implementation for IRB review. The IRB approved informed consent form document (undated) must be used for consenting study subjects. This informed consent form has been stamped by the IRB office and will expire on 4/27/99. You may not use this informed consent form document after that date. Approval o f your study will also expired on 4/27/99. You m ust submit a progress report (Continuing Review Form) one to two months prior to your study expiration date to permit IRB review. You will receive a new informed consent form to use for the following year, i f the Continuing Review form o f your project is approved. You must conduct this research and supervise the research staff involved in this research project in accordance with Federal, State, Local and Institutional policies concerning the use o f hum an subjects in research. In conducting this research, you must comply with IRB policies detailed in the most recent version o f the IRB Policies and Procedures. I f you do not have a copy o f the IRB Policies and Procedures R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 5 dated M ay 29, 1996, do not continue this research, contact the IRB office immediately to receive it and review it carefully before you proceed. I f any adverse event occurs during the study, it m ust be reported to the Research Committee, the sponsor and the FDA. A ny proposed changes in the research study or informed consent must be submitted and reviewed by the ERB before the change can be implemented. The only exception is a change necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the research subjects. In such a case, the IRB should be promptly informed o f the change following its implementation for review. Approval fo r this study is valid April 28, 1998 to April 27, 1999. Review Category E - Requires annual reporting by review form. N ote: The informed consent will not be translated into Spanish without verbal or written notification from the Principal Investigator. W hen submitting proposed revisions to the informed consent form document please comply with the following: 1. The revised informed consent form document m ust have a date o f revision identified on every page. 2. Two copies o f the proposed revised informed consent should be submitted. One copy must have all deleted text identified with a strikethrough (deleted text). All added text must be underlined (new text). The second copy will be clean with all text identifiers removed for the IRB approval stamp. A copy o f the clean informed consent will be the official informed consent form document and will be returned to the investigator for use in the study. It is critical that this procedure be followed as errors have occurred during Spanish translation of incompletely identified text. Documents submitted without these details will be returned to the investigator and will not be approved. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 6 INFORMED CONSENT for JAPANESE TRANSLATION OF THE EVALUATION OF SENSORY PROCESSING PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR: Tomohiro Takahashi DEPARTMENT: Occupational Science/Occupational Therapy 24-HOUR TELEPHONE NUM BER- (626) 441-1696 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: You are invited to participate in a study involving development o f a Japanese translation of the Evaluation o f Sensory Processing (ESP), a parent questionnaire designed to help us understand how a child uses his or her senses at home and in school. The ESP has been carefully translated into Japanese for use in Japan. We hope that we can learn which items need further revision for clearness, applicability, and understandability to Japanese monolingual parents. You are invited as a possible participant in this study because o f your Japanese background and your child who is in the target age group in this study. There will be five parents involved in the study. PROCEDURE: If you decide to participate, we will ask you to Fill out the Japanese version of the ESP (JESP). The ESP is a questionnaire that asks 184 questions about your child's behavioral responses to various types of sensory experiences in daily life. Parents who live in the United States will be asked to apply their knowledge of the current Japanese culture to fill out it. It will take approximately thirty minutes to fill out the JESP. After completing the JESP, you will be interviewed by the main researcher and asked opinions on the clarity, understandability, and applicability o f the JESP. This will take approximately sixty minutes. RISKS: There are no risks other than the inconvenience of spending the time to fill out the JESP and discussing items with the researcher. Your child will not be examined or observed in any way as part of this study. BENEFITS: No specific benefits to you or your child are expected. However, your participation may contribute to the development of better services for Japanese children eventually. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT: The alternative is not to participate in the study. CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you Will remain confidential. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 7 OFFER TO ANSWER QUESTIONS: Your participation in the study will be under the care ofTomohiro Takahashi at (626) 441-1696 who you may contact with any questions or concerns regarding your participation. Any quescions or concerns that you may have about participation related injuries should be discussed with the Principal Investigator, Tomohiro Takahashi, OTR at (626) 441-1696. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a study subject, you my contact the Institutional Review Board Office at (213) 223-2340. You will be given a copy of this form to keep. COERCION AND WITHDRAWAL STATEMENT: Your decision whether or not to participate will not interfere with your future we at any institution where your child receives care or schooling. If you do decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time. INJURY STATEMENT: If you require medical treatment as a result of injury arising from your participation in this study, the financial responsibility for such care will be yours. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU MUST BE INFORMED ABOUT: 1. The nature and purpose of the study. 2. The procedures in the study and any drug or device to be used. 3. Discomforts and risks to be expected from the study. 4. Benefits to be expected from the study. 5. Alternative procedures, drugs or devices that might be helpful and their risks and benefits. 6. Availability o f medical treatment should complications occur. 7. The opportunity to ask questions about the study or the procedure. 8. The opportunity to withdraw at any time without affecting your future care at this institution. 9. A copy of the written consent form for the study. 10. The opportunity to consent freely to the study without the use o f coercion. 11. Statement regarding liability for physical injury, if applicable. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE. Signature of Parent Date Signature of Witness Relationship to Parent Form V alid For E n ro llm en t From A PR 2 8 1 9 9 8 Tn A P R 27 1 9 9 9 In stitu tio n a l R e v ie w Board R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 8 APPENDIX D Comprehensive results of Japanese and Back-translation process R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 9 ITEM ITEM WORDING NUMBER_____________________________________________________________________________ Auditory System 1 O Is your child bothered by or fearful of the sound made by a toilet flushing? ♦ Is your child bothered by or afraid of the sound o f a toilet flushing? 2 O Does your child startle or become distressed by loud or unexpected sounds? ♦ Is your child really startled or distressed by loud noises or unexpected noises? 3 O Does your child have trouble understanding what other people mean when they say something? ♦ Is your child confused because he/she doesn't understand what other people mean when they say something? 4 O Does your child seem to hear sounds that other people tend to not notice? ♦ Does your child appear to hear sounds that others are not aware of? 5 O Do you notice your child being bothered by any sounds which occur during daily life tasks, such as tasks of personal hygiene, dressing, eating, home making, school work, play/leisure? ♦ Is your child bothered by the sounds of everyday tasks like personal hygiene, changing clothes, eating, home helping, studying, play, or leisure? 6 O Is your child bothered by loud background noise such as construction work nearby or sounds of machinery operating? ♦ Is your child bothered by the loud background sounds of a nearby construction site or its machines operating? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 0 ITEM ITEM WORDING NUMBER Is your child bothered by loud background noise such as construction work nearby or other sounds o f machinery operating? ♦ ♦ Is your child bothered by the loud background sounds of a nearby construction site or other machines operating? 7 O Does your child seem to have trouble remembering what is said to him/her? ♦ Does your child seem to have difficulty remembering things that are told to him/her? 8 O Is your ch ild bothered by any household or ordinary sounds, such as squeaky shoes, the vacuum, the blow dryer, dog barking, etc.? ♦ Is your child bothered by the sounds of everyday household or ordinary sounds such as creaky shoes, vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, or dog barking? 9 O Does your child seem to understand oral directions? ♦ Does your child appear to correctly understand oral instructions? 10 O Does your child fail to act upon a request to do something, or fail to understand directions? ♦ Is your child unable to carry out a task that he/she has been asked to do, or fail to understand the instructions? 11 O Does your child respond negatively to loud noises as in running away, crying, or holding hands over ears? ♦ Does your child react negatively when he/she hears loud noises such as running away, crying, or covering his/her ears with hands? 12 O Is your child distracted by subtle sounds, such as fluorescent light bulbs, heaters, fans, refrigerators? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FTRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ^SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Rev 81 ITEM ITEM WORDING NUMBER_____________________________________________________________________________ _ ♦ Is your child distracted by background noises, such as fluorescent lights, heaters, electric fans, and refrigerators? 13 O Is your child bothered by the sound of the vacuum? ♦ Is your child bothered by the sound o f a vacuum cleaner? 14 O Is your child bothered by the sound made by certain accessories such as bracelets and necklaces? ♦ Is your child annoyed by the sound generated by certain accessories, such as a bracelet, and a necklace? 15 O Does your child appear to not hear certain sounds? ♦ Does your child not hear certain sounds? 16 O Is your child distracted by sounds not normally noticed by other people? ♦ Is your child distracted by sounds that other people are not normally aware of? 17 O Does your child mind the sound o f the hairdryer? ♦ Does your child mind the sound o f a hair dryer? 18 O Does your child mind the sound o f squeaky shoes? ♦ Does your child mind the sound o f creaky shoes? 19 O Is your child frightened of sounds that do not usually convey alarm to other children the same age? ♦ Is your child frightened by normal sounds that most children his/her age are not frightened by? 20 O Does your child hear sounds other people don't notice or have trouble tuning out certain sounds, such as, a clock or watch ticking? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 2 ITEM ITEM WORDING NUMBER_____________________________________________________________________________ Does your child hear sounds other people don't recognize or have ♦ trouble ignoring some sounds, such as the ticking o f a clock or a watch? Does your child hear sounds other people don't pay attention to, or have trouble ignoring certain sounds, such as, a clock or watch ticking? ♦ ♦ Does your child hear sounds other people don't pay attention to or have trouble ignoring some sounds, such as the ticking of a clock or a watch? 21 O Does your child ask others not to talk or sing or make noise? ♦ Does your child ask others not to talk, sing or make noise? 22 O Does your child appear to make noise for noise's sake? ♦ Does your child seem to makes noise on purpose? Does your child appear to make noise in order to hear the sound? ♦ ♦ Does your child seem to makes noise just for the sake of hearing it? 23 O Compared to other children the same age does your child seem to under react to loud noises? ♦ Compared to other children his/her age, does your child seem to have an under reaction in response to loud noises? 24 O Does your child have trouble interpreting the meaning of simple or common words? ♦ Does your child have difficulty judging the meaning o f simple or common words? Does your child have trouble understanding the meaning of simple or common words? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Rev Rev Rev 8 3 ITEM ITEM WORDING NUMBER_____________________________________________________________________________ ♦ ♦ Does your child have difficulty understanding the meaning o f simple or common words? 25 0 Does your child respond negatively or seem bothered by unexpected sounds or noises, as in running away, crying, or holding hands over ears? ♦ Does your child dislike or appear to be bothered by sudden loud sounds or noises, such as running away, crying, or covering his/her ears with hands? 26 0 Does your child seem confused as to the direction from where sounds are coming? ♦ Does your child get confused because he/she doesn't know the direction from which sounds are coming? 27 0 Does your child have difficulty paying attention when there are other noises nearby? ♦ Does your child have difficulty to continue paying attention when your child hears a sound nearby? 28 0 Is your child easily distracted by irrelevant or background noises such as a lawn mower outside, children talking in the back of the room, crinkling paper, air conditioners, refrigerators, fluorescent lights? ♦ ♦ Is your child distracted by background or unrelated sounds, such as a lawn mower outside, children talking at the back of the room, the rattling of paper, an air conditioner, a refrigerator, or a fluorescent light? ♦ ♦ Is your child distracted by background or unrelated sounds, such as a motor cycle passing by, children talking at the back of the room, the rattling of paper, an air conditioner, a refrigerator, or a fluorescent light? 29 0 Does your child seem too sensitive to sounds? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ 4=1111110 BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 4 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child appear to be overly sensitive to sounds? 30 0 Does your child ask "what?" a lot, or need to have words, especially directions repeated? ♦ Does your child often ask, "What?” or need more explanation, especially needing directions repeated? 31 0 Does your child like to sing or dance to music? ♦ Does your child enjoy singing and dancing to music? Olfactory/ Gustatory System 1 0 Does your child gag, vomit, or complain of nausea when smelling odors such as soap, perfume, or cleaning products? ♦ Does your child gag, vomit, or feel nauseous when he/she smells odors, such as soap, perfume or cleaning supplies? 2 0 Does your child respond to odors that other people do not notice? ♦ Does your child appear to smell odors that others are not aware of? 3 0 Does your child complain that foods are too bland or refuse to eat bland foods? ♦ Does your child complain that the tastes of foods are too bland, or does not desire to eat bland foods? 4 0 Does your child season his/her food heavily or indicate a desire for heavy seasoning, such as excessive salt, ketchup, or other spices? ♦ Does your child desire a lot o f seasoning on his/her food or desire to add extra salt, ketchup, or other seasonings? 5 0 As an infant did your child resist eating when new flavors of pureed baby foods were introduced? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 5 ITEM ITEM WORDING NUM BER______________________________________________________________________________ ♦ When your child was an infant, did your child resist eating new pureed baby food that he/she had never eaten before? 6 O Does your child prefer very salty foods? ♦ Does your child prefer really salty food? 7 O Does your child complain o f being hurt by a taste or a smell? ♦ Does your child ever complain o f being hurt because of certain tastes or smells? 8 O Does your child like unusual combinations o f flavors such as ketchup with ice cream or salt in orange juice? ♦ Does your child like to put together strange combinations of flavors, such as putting ketchup on ice cream, or salt in orange juice? 9 O Does your child like to taste non-food items such as glue or paint? ♦ Does your child like to taste other things that are not foods, such as glue or paint? 10 O Does your child gag when smelling food odors such as cooked broccoli or garlic? ♦ Has your child ever felt nauseous at the smell o f cooked broccoli or garlic, etc? Does your child feel nauseous or gag when smelling food odors such as Rev cooked broccoli or garlic? ♦ ♦ Has your child ever felt nauseous or gag at the sm ell of raw fish or nuka-zuke (Japanese pickles with strong odor), etc? ♦ ♦ ♦ Does your child feel nauseous or gag at the smell o f raw fish or nuka- zuke (Japanese pickles with strong odor), etc? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 6 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 11 0 Does your child gag when anticipating an unappealing food such as cooked spinach? ♦ Has your child ever felt nauseous when anticipating foods that he/she does not prefer, such as cooked spinach? Does your child feel nauseous or gag when anticipating an unpleasant food such as cooked spinach? ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Has your child ever felt nauseous or gag when anticipating unpleasant foods that he/she does not prefer, such as Nattou (fermented soybeans)? Does your child feel nauseous or gag when anticipating unpleasant foods that he/she does not prefer, such as Nattou (fermented soybeans)? 12 0 Does your child gag at a sound associated with an unpleasant odor such as the sound of a can o f cat food being opened? ♦ Has your child ever felt nauseous at the sound associated with unpleasant odors such as the sound o f opening a can of cat food? Does your child feel nauseous or gag at a sound associated with an unpleasant odor such as the sound o f a can of cat food being opened? ♦ ♦ Has your child ever felt nauseous or gag at the sound associated with unpleasant odors such as the sound o f opening a can o f mackerel? ♦ ♦♦ Does your child feel nauseous or gag at the sound associated with unpleasant odors such as the sound o f opening a can o f mackerel? 13 0 Does your child prefer to eat spicy foods? ♦ Does your child like to eat really spicy foods? 14 0 Does your child prefer to eat sour foods or candies? ♦ Does your child like to eat sour foods or candies? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 7 HEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 15 0 Is your child distracted by smells on his/her hands? ♦ Is your child distracted by the smell o f his/her own hand? ♦ ♦ Is your child distracted by the odor on his/her own hand? PI 0 Does your child grasp objects so tightly that it is difficult to use the object? ♦ Does your child seize things so tightly in his/her hand that he/she has difficulty using an object? Does your child hold objects so tighdy that it is difficult to use the object? ♦ ♦ Does your child hold things so tightly in his/her hand that he/she has difficulty using an object? 2 0 Does your child tire easily after sitting or lying in the same position for awhile? ♦ Does your child become tired easily from situ'ng or lying in the same position for a period of time? 3 o Does your child grind his/her teeth? ♦ Does your child grind his/her teeth? 4 o Does your child seem driven to seek activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, lifting and jumping? ♦ Does your child really want to find activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, lifting, or jumping? 5 0 Does your child climb high into trees, jump off tall walls or furniture, etc.? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦ =THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 8 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child like to climb up high in trees, jump down from high walls or furniture? 6 O Does your child like giving bear hugs? ♦ Does your child like to hug people and things and squeeze them tightly? 7 O Does your child seem unsure o f how far to raise or lower the body during movement such as sitting down or stepping over an object? ♦ Does your child seem to not know how much to raise or lower his/her body during movement such as sitting down or when straddling something? 8 o Does your child not notice falling? ♦ Does your child not realize when he/she is about to fall? Does your child not notice when he/she is falling? ♦ ♦ Does your child not realize when he/she is falling? 9 0 Does your child like to be under heavy blankets, covers or pillows? ♦ Does your child like to be underneath heavy blankets, bed covers, or pillows? 10 o Does your child tend to break toys? ♦ Does your child tend to break his/her toys? 11 o Does your child chew on pens, straws, etc.? ♦ Does your child chew on pens or straws? 12 o Does your child grasp objects so loosely that it is difficult to use the object? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 9 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child hold objects so loosely that it is difficult to use the objects? 13 0 Does your child chew on nonfood objects? ♦ Does your child chew on objects that are not food? 14 0 Does your child seem to exert too much pressure for the task, for example, walks heavily, slams doors, or presses too hard when using pencils or crayons? ♦ Does your child extend too much pressure when doing something, such as, walks heavily, slams a door hard, exerts too much pressure when using a pencil or a crayon? 15 0 Does your child jump a lot? ♦ Does your child jump up and down a lot? ♦ ♦ Does your child jump a lot? 16 0 Does your child have difficulty playing with animals appropriately, such as petting them with too much force? ♦ Does your child have difficulty playing appropriately with animals, such as put too much force into petting a pet? 17 0 Does your child have difficulty positioning him/herself in a chair? ♦ Does your child have difficulty to maintain his/her posture when sitting in a chair? Does your child have difficulty getting into a sitting position in a chair? ♦ ♦ Does your child have difficulty to get into a sitting position in a chair? 18 0 Does your child frequently hit, bump, and/or push other children? ♦ Does your child often hit other children, run into them, or push them? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 0 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 19 O Does your child seem generally weak? ♦ Is your child’s overall body appearance weak? Does your child perform most activities weakly? ♦ ♦ When your child is doing an activity, does he/she appear to do it weakly? 20 O Compared with other children the same age, does your child seem to seek out activities that involve jumping, crashing into things, pushing, pulling or falling? ♦ Compared to other children your child's age, does your child seem to really want to find activities that involve jumping about, running into things, pushing, pulling, or falling? 21 o Does your child like getting bear hugs? ♦ Does your child like to be hugged and squeezed tightly? 22 o Does your child taste or chew on toys, clothes, or other objects more than other children? ♦ Does your child frequently put toys or clothes in his/her mouth or chew on these things more than other children do? 23 o Does your child crave hugging or rough playing? ♦ Does your child often desire to be hugged, or play roughly? 24 o Does your child like to chew on hard candy? ♦ Does your child like to chew on hard candy? 25 o Does your child have difficulty sitting erect, or choose to lie down instead of sitting up? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ =SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 91 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child have difficulty sitting straight, or prefer to lie down rather than sit? Tactile System I 0 Does your child dislike going barefoot, not like to take his/her shoes off or insist on always wearing shoes? ♦ Does your child dislike being barefoot or hate taking o ff his/her shoes, or always want to keep his/her shoes on? 2 o Does it bother your child to play games with bare feet? ♦ Is your child bothered by playing in bare foot? 3 0 Is your child irritated by the feel o f certain clothing? 4 ♦ 0 Is your child irritated by the feel o f certain types o f clothing? Does your child pull away from light touch? ♦ Does your child try to avoid a light touch to his/her body? Does your child pull away when receiving a light touch? ♦ ♦ Does your child draw away when lightly touched? 5 0 Does your child seem to lack the normal awareness o f being touched? ♦ Does it seem that something is generally missing when your child’ s body is touched? Does your child not notice being touched? 4 4 Does your child not notice when he/she is touched? 6 0 Does your child resist or dislike wearing clothing o f certain textures? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 2 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child resist or dislike wearing certain clothes o f certain textures? 7 O Does your child react negatively to the feel of new clothes? ♦ Does your child indicate a dislike o f the feel of new clothes? 8 O Does your child tend to prefer to wear long sleeve shirts and long pants regardless o f the weather, for instance prefers to wear long sleeves even when it is warm outside? ♦ Does your child like to wear long sleeves and long pants with no regard to the weather, for example prefers to wear long sleeves even on a warm day outside? 9 O Does your child seem excessively ticklish? ♦ Does your child seem to like being tickled excessively? Does your child seem excessively sensitive to being tickled? ♦ ♦ Does your child appear to be excessively sensitive to tickling? 10 0 Does your child like to cuddle up with a blanket or stuffed animal or special pillow? ♦ Does your child like to sleep by nestling up to a blanket or stuffed animal or special pillow? Does your child like to hug a blanket or stuffed animal or special pillow? ♦ ♦ Does your child like to hug a blanket or stuffed animal or special pillow? 11 o Does your child enjoy tickling as a form of play? ♦ Does your child like being tickled as a form of play? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 3 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 12 0 Does your child avoid playing with "messy" things such as finger paint, mud, sand, glue, glitter, or clay? ♦ Does your child try to avoid playing with things that will get his/her hands dirty such as finger paint, mud, sand, glue, lame, or clay? 13 0 Does your child show an unusual dislike for having his/her hair combed, brushed or styled? ♦ Does your child dislike having his/her hair combed or brushed, or hair styled more than the norm? 14 0 Do rough bedsheets bother your child? ♦ Is your child annoyed by the feeling of rough sheets? 15 0 Does wearing turtleneck shirts bother your child? < > Is your child bothered by wearing turtleneck clothes? 16 0 Does your child prefer to touch rather than be touched? ♦ Does your child like touching someone more than being touched by someone else? 17 0 Does your child seem driven to touch different textures? ♦ Does your child seem to desire touching different textures? Does your child seem to have a strong desire to touch different textures? ♦ ♦ Does your child appear to have a strong desire to touch many different kinds of things? 18 0 Does your child prefer to go barefoot? ♦ Does your child like being barefoot? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECO ND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ 4=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 4 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 19 0 Does your child refuse to wear hats, sunglasses, or other accessories? ♦ Does your child reject wearing a hat, sunglasses, or other related accessories? 20 0 Does wearing fuzzy shirts bother your child? ♦ Is your child bothered wearing fuzzy shirts? 21 0 Does your child dislike wearing pants or complain about the feel of them brushing against his/her legs? ♦ Does your child dislike wearing long pants because of their rubbing on his/her leg? 22 0 Does your child tend to wear coats or sweaters when they are not needed? ♦ Does your child like wearing a coat or sweater even when it is not necessary? 23 0 Does your child appear to lack the normal awareness of being touched? ♦ Does it appear that your child does not have the normal awareness when he/she is touched? 24 0 Does your child prefer the textures of certain clothing? ♦ Does your child prefer the texture of certain types of clothing? 25 0 Does your child overreact to minor injuries? ♦ Does your child have an exaggerated reaction to even a minor injury? 26 0 Does your child complain about irritating bumps on the bedsheets? ♦ Does your child complain about the bumps of sheets causing discomfort to him/her? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦ =THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 5 ITEM NUM BER ITEM WORDING 27 O Does it bother your child to have his/her finger or toe nails cut? ♦ Is your child bothered having his/her fingernails or toenails cut? 28 O Does your child struggle against being held? ♦ Does your child resist being held? Does your child fight against being held? ♦ ♦ Does your child strongly fight being held? 29 0 Does your child dislike playing games with his/her bare feet? ♦ Does your child dislike playing barefoot? 30 0 Does your child have a tendency to touch things constantly? ♦ Does your child tend to always touch something? Does your child have a strong desire to touch things frequently? ♦ ♦ Does your child often have a strong desire to touch things? 31 o Does your child dislike getting his/her hands messy or ask to wash hands when using things like glue and glitter? ♦ Does your child dislike having his/her hands dirty or ask to go wash hands when he/she is using glue or lame, etc? 32 0 Does your child avoid or dislike playing with gritty things? ♦ Does your child avoid or dislike playing with the things like sand? Does your child avoid or dislike playing with textures like sand? ♦ ♦ Does your child avoid or dislike playing with gritty textures? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECO ND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 6 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 33 0 Do tags or collars on clothing bother your child? ♦ Is your child annoyed by tags or collars on clothing? 34 0 Does your child demonstrate an aversion to any form o f clothing? ♦ Does your child display his/her an aversion to any type o f clothing? 35 0 Does your child prefer certain textures o f clothing or particular fabrics? ♦ Does your child have a preference for the feeling of certain types of clothing on his/her skin? 36 0 Does it bother your child to have his/her face touched? ♦ Is your child bothered having his/her face touched? 37 0 Does it bother your child to have his/her face washed? ♦ Is your child bothered having his/her face washed? 38 0 Does your child object to being touched by familiar people? ♦ Does your child protest being touched by even someone that he/she knows well? 39 0 Does it bother your child if he/she can not see who is touching him/her when among familiar people at home or school? ♦ Is your child bothered not knowing who is touching him/her when your child is with familiar people at either home or school? 40 o Does the feel of new clothes bother your child? ♦ Is your child annoyed with the feel of new clothes? 41 0 Does your child resist or dislike wearing short sleeved shirts or short pants? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 7 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child resist or dislike wearing short sleeves or short pants? 42 0 Does your child seem to lack awareness of being touched by others? ♦ Does your child appear to lack an awareness of when someone else is touching him/her? 43 o Does your child ask you to take the tags and labels out of clothing or only wear clothes which have had the tags and labels removed? ♦ Has your child ever asked you to remove a label from his/her clothing, or only wear clothes from which the labels have been removed before? 44 o Is your child irritated by tags on clothing? ♦ Is your child annoyed because of the tag on clothing? 45 o Is your child bothered by hair brushing against his/her face? ♦ Is your child annoyed to have hair brushing against his/her face? 46 o Does your child dislike the feeling of certain clothing? ♦ Does your child display his/her displeasure about the feeling of certain types of clothing? 47 o Does your child have an unusually high tolerance for pain? ♦ Does your child have an unusually high tolerance o f pain? 48 o Does your child demonstrate an excessive need to touch? ♦ Does your child ever seem badgered by excessive touching? Does your child have an extremely strong desire to touch? ♦ ♦ Does your child show an extremely strong desire to touch? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 8 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 49 0 Does your child display an unusual need for touching certain textures, surfaces, objects or toys? ♦ Does your child show an excessive desire to touch something? Does your child display an excessive desire to touch certain textures, objects, or toys? ♦ ♦ Does your child show an excessive desire to touch certain things? 50 0 Does your child starde easily when being touched unexpectedly? ♦ Is your child easily surprised when your child is unexpectedly touched? Is your child easily disturbed when unexpectedly touched? ♦ ♦ Does your child get upset when your child is unexpectedly touched? 51 0 Does wearing fuzzy socks bother your child? ♦ Is your child annoyed to wear fuzzy socks? 52 0 Does your child dislike eating messy foods with his/her hands? ♦ Does your child dislike eating foods that are messy with his/her hands? 53 0 Does your child tend to feel pain less than others do? ♦ Does it seem that your child feels pain less than other people do? 54 0 Does it bother your child when a familiar person at home or school is close by? ♦ Is your child bothered getting close to people, even ones with whom he/she is familiar? ♦ ♦ Is your child bothered by even someone with whom he/she is familiar getting close to him/her at home or school? NOTE, 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ =SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 9 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 55 O Does your child avoid touching different textures? ♦ Does your child avoid touching things that have different textures? 56 0 Does your child appear to resist eating certain foods because of their texture? ♦ Does it seem that your child refuses to eat certain foods because of their textures? 57 o Does your child strongly dislike being tickled? ♦ Does your child really dislike being tickled? 58 0 Does your child avoid foods o f certain textures? ♦ Has your child avoided eating specific foods because of certain textures? 59 o Does your child avoid getting his/her hands in finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, glue, etc.? ♦ Does your child try to avoid sticking his/her hands in finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, or glue? 60 0 Does your child seek messy play activities? ♦ Does your child search out the type of play where he/she gets messy? 61 o Does it bother your child to have his/her hair cut? ♦ Is your child bothered by having his/her hair cut? Vestibular System I 0 Does your child rock while sitting? ♦ Does he/she rock his/her body when your child is sitting? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ =SECOND B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 0 0 ITEM NUM BER ITEM WORDING 2 O Does your child seem excessively fearful o f movement, as in going up and down stairs or riding swings, teeter totters, slides, or other playground equipment? ♦ Is your child excessively afraid of movement, such as going up or down stairs, or riding swings, seesaws, slides, or other outdoor play equipment? 3 0 Does your child get nauseous or vomit due to movement experiences? ♦ Has your child ever gotten nauseous or vomited after experiencing som e movement? 4 0 Does your child like to swing? ♦ Does your child like swinging? 5 0 Does your child demonstrate distress when he/she is moved or riding on moving equipment? ♦ Does your child show his/her distress when he/she is moved or rides on equipment for play? 6 0 Does your child's head move along with his/her eyes in activities such as reading, following along with a parent reading or playing a computer game? ♦ Does your child move his/her head along with his/her eyes when reading following along when parents read, or playing a computer game? 7 0 Is your child frequently and easily confused about his/her location for example, gets lost in stores, or can't find the way to a familiar classroom? ♦ Does your child easily get lost in stores, or on his/her way to a familiar classroom? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECO ND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 0 1 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ ♦ Does your child often get confused about where he/she is at, such as he/she gets lost in a store, or loses his/her way to a familiar classroom? 8 0 Does your child have good balance? ♦ Is your child able to keep his/her balance? 9 o Does your child have to exert more effort to move than others, tire easily from exertion and or require more sleep than others? ♦ Does your child need to exert more effort to move than other people and then get tired easily from exerting a lot of effort and require more sleep than other people after a lot o f exertion? Does your child have to exert more effort to move than others, tire easily from exertion, or require more sleep than others? ♦ ♦ Does your child need to exert more effort to move than other people do and then get tired easily, or require more sleep than other people do? 1 0 0 Does your child avoid balance activities such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? ♦ Does your child try to avoid walking on curbs or on flat ground? Does your child avoid balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? ♦ ♦ Does your child try to avoid balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? 11 0 Is your child fearful of heights, such as escalators, glass elevators, etc.? ♦ Is your child afraid of high places, such as escalators, glass elevators? 12 0 Does your child like fast movements, such as being whirled about or tossed in the air by an adult? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ 4=111210 BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 0 2 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child like fast movements, such as being spun around or being lifted up high in the air by an adult? 13 0 Does your child like to climb very high? ♦ Does your child like to climb up to very high places? 14 0 Does your child like fast spinning carnival rides, such as merry-go-rounds ? ♦ Does your child like fast moving spinning rides, such as a merry-go- round? 15 0 Is your child fearful o f activities which require good balance? ♦ Is your child afraid o f activities that require a good sense of balance? 16 0 When your child shifts his/her body does he/she fall out of his chair? ♦ When your child moves his/her body in a chair has he/she ever fallen out o f a chair? 17 0 Is your child unable to catch him/herself when falling? ♦ When your child is about to fall, is he/she able to prevent the fall by moving his/her body to correct himself/herself? Is your child unable to catch him/herself when he/she is falling? ♦ ♦ Is your child able to prevent himself/herself from falling, when your child is falling? 18 0 Does your child seem to not get dizzy when others usually do? ♦ Does it appear that your child does not experience dizziness, even at a time when normal people would experience dizziness? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 103 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 1 9 O Does your child get car sick? ♦ Does your child get carsick? 2 0 0 Does your child seem generally weak? ♦ Does your child's body overall appear weak? Does your child perform most activities weakly? ♦ ♦ When your child is doing an activity, does he/she appear to do it weakly? 2 1 0 Does your child spin and whirl more than other children? ♦ Does your child do a lot o f spinning activities more than other children do? 2 2 0 Does your child rock himself/herself when stressed? ♦ When your child feels stress does he/she rock his/her body? 2 3 o Does your child like to be inverted or tipped upside down or enjoy doing activities that involve inversion, such as hanging upside down or doing somersaults? ♦ Does your child like to stand on his/her head or be upsides down or enjoy doing activities that involve turning him/her upside down, such as hanging upside down from something, or doing somersaults? Does your child like to be upside down or enjoy doing activities that involve inversion, such as hanging upside down or doing somersaults? ♦ ♦ Does your child like to be upsides down or enjoy doing activities that involve turning him/her upside down, such as hanging upside down from something, or doing somersaults? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 104 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 24 0 Is your child fearful o f swinging or bouncing, or was fearful of this as an infant? ♦ Is your child afraid o f swinging or jumping, or when your child was an infant, was he/she afraid of these activities? Is your child fearful o f swinging or jumping up and down, or was fearful o f this as an infant? ♦ ♦ Is your child afraid o f swinging or jumping up and down, or when your child was an infant, was he/she afraid o f these activities? 25 0 Does your child experience discomfort, nausea, or dizziness following movement, especial ly rotation? ♦ Does your child feel discomfort, nausea, or dizziness after movement, especially after spinning around? 26 0 Does your child tend to need movement in order to "get going," for example, after waking up from a nap? ♦ Does your child seem to need to move around to get going, such as after he/she wakes up from a nap? 27 0 Does your child dislike sudden or quick movement such as suddenly stopping or going over a bump while riding in the car? ♦ W hile riding in a car, does your child dislike sudden or quick • movement such as stopping short or going across bumps? 28 0 Compared with other children the same age does your child seem to ride longer or harder on certain playground equipment for example, swing, round? ♦ D oes it appear that compared to other kids your child's age your child seems to ride longer or more intensely on certain play equipment, such as swings, or merry — go - rounds? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP rTEM, ♦ =FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=TEHRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev- R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 105 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING 29 0 Does your child avoid rapid or spinning movement? ♦ Does it appear that your child wants to avoid rapid or spinning movement? 30 0 Is your child fearful of activities in which he/she moves through space? ♦ Is your child afraid o f movements where he/she moves his/her body through the air? 31 0 Does your child demonstrate distress when his/her head is in any other position than upright or vertical such as having the head tilted backward or upside down? ♦ Does your child complain when his/her head is in any other position than in a straight or vertical position, such as a backward tilted position or upside down position? Is your child upset when his/her head is in any other position than upright or vertical such as having the head tilted backward or upside down? ♦ ♦ Is your child disturbed when his/her head is in any other position than in a straight or vertical position, such as a backward tilted position or upside down position? 32 0 Does your child react negatively to, dislike, appear threatened by, or exhibit a fear reaction to movement? ♦ Does your child show unfavorable reactions to, display dislike, seem to be threatened by, or show fearful reactions to movement? 33 0 Does your child enjoy excessive spinning and twirling? ♦ Does your child excessively like turning around or spinning? Does your child enjoy excessive spinning? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST B ACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING Rev Rev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 106 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ ♦ Does your child excessively like spinning? Visual System 1 O Does your child have trouble telling the difference between printed figures that appear similar, for example, differentiating b with p, or + with x? ♦ Does your child have difficulty in telling the difference between figures that look alike, such as distinguishing b with p, or + with x ? ♦ ♦ Does your child have difficulty in telling the difference between figures that look alike, such as distinguishing & with fc, or A with A ? 2 0 Is your child sensitive to or bothered by light, especially bright light (blinks, squints, cries, or closes eyes, etc.)? ♦ Does your child show sensitivity to or get bothered by lights, especially sensitivity to bright light (blinking a lot, squinting, crying, or closing his/her eyes)? 3 0 When looking at pictures, does your child focus on patterns or details instead of the main pictures? ♦ When looking at a picture, does your child concentrate on the pattern or the details o f the picture instead of looking at the whole picture? 4 0 Is your child able to look at something far away? ♦ Can your child see things that are far away? 5 o Does your child have difficulty keeping his/her eyes on the task or activity at hand? ♦ Is it difficult for your child to keep his/her eyes on the task or activity that he/she is doing at hand? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD BACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 107 ITEM NUM BER ITEM WORDING 6 0 Does your child have trouble maintaining his/her visual focus on one task or object for very long? ♦ Does you child have difficulty to maintaining his/her visual focus on a certain task or activity for an extended time? 7 o Does your child rub his/her eyes, complain o f headaches, or have eyes which water after reading or looking at books? ♦ Does he/she rub his/her eyes, complain o f a headache, or have teary eyes after he/she has read or looked at a book? 8 0 Does your child have difficulty with visually focusing on things far away? ♦ Does your child have difficulty with maintaining visual focus on things that are far away? 9 0 Does your child become easily distracted by visual stimuli? ♦ Is your child easily distracted by visual stimulation? 10 o Does your child have trouble locating things laying on top of other things, especially things o f the same color, or have trouble finding an object when it is amidst a group of other things? ♦ Does your child have difficulty in recognizing things being piled on top o f others, especially when things on the very top have the same color, or have trouble recognizing an object when it is placed in the center of other objects? 11 0 Does your child close one eye and/or tip his/her head back when looking at something or someone? ♦ Does your child close his/her one eye or tilt his/her head backward when he/she is looking at something or someone? 12 0 Does your child have difficulty with unusual visual environments such as a bright colorful room or a dimly lit room? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦ =FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦♦=SECO ND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 0 8 ITEM NUMBER ITEM WORDING ♦ Does your child have difficulty being in unusual visual environments such as a bright colorful room or an ill-lit room? 13 0 Does your child have difficulty with visually focusing on things close? 14 ♦ 0 Is it difficult for your child to visually focus on things that are nearby? Does your child have difficulty controlling eye movements during activities such as following objects like a ball with eyes, keeping place while reading, or copying from blackboard to the desk? ♦ Does your child have difficulty controlling his/her eye movement, such as following an object like a ball with his/her eyes, keeping place with his/her eyes during reading, or copying letters from a blackboard onto notebook paper on a desk? 15 O Compared to other children the same age does your child seem to be easily distracted by visual stimuli? ♦ Compared to other children his/her age, is your child easily distracted by visual stimulation? 16 O Does your child have trouble following objects with his/her eyes? ♦ Is it difficult for your child to follow objects with his/her eyes? 17 o Does your child have difficulty naming, discriminating, or matching colors, shapes or sizes? ♦ Does your child have difficulty in naming colors, shapes, sizes, or in distinguishing them, or correctly matching them up? 18 0 Did your child make reversals in words or letters when writing or copying or read words backwards (such as reading saw for was) after the first grade? ♦ Since your child has been a first-grader, has your child ever copied or written letters or words in the reverse order or read words backwards? NOTE. 0 = ORIGINAL ESP ITEM, ♦=FIRST BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦=SECOND BACK-TRANSLATION, ♦ ♦ ♦=THIRD B ACK-TRANSLATION, REV= REVISED ORIGINAL ESP WORDING R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (Q A -3) ✓ /, IIVW GE. Ino 1653 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14609 USA Phone: 716/482-0300 Fax: 716/288-5989 0 1 9 9 3 . A p p l i e d I m a g e , I n c . . A ll R i g h t s R e s e r v e d R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Interrater reliability of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP)
PDF
An examination of the health-related quality of life and functional skills as reported by the parents of young children with developmental delays
PDF
A study of a pilot sensory history questionnaire using contrasting groups
PDF
"I'm not much different": Occupation, identity, and spinal cord injury in America
PDF
Translation of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing into Mandarin Chinese for use in Taiwan
PDF
An investigation of the relationship between measures of social, academic and global self-concept
PDF
Health-related quality of life, occupation and prosthesis use in elderly people with lower extremity amputation in Taiwan
PDF
Lesbian identities, daily occupations, and health care experiences
PDF
A qualitative study on the relationship of future orientation and daily occupations of adolescents in a psychiatric setting
PDF
Coping Strategies Of Three Adolescents With Disabilities
PDF
Fine motor skills of two- to three-year-old drug exposed children
PDF
A Comparison Of Prenatally Drug Exposed Preschoolers To Non-Drug Exposed Preschoolers Using The Miller Assessment For Preschoolers
PDF
Performances of orthodox and liberal Jewish children in third grade on praxis subtests of the SIPT: a cross cultural study
PDF
Prevelance of sensory processing difficulties and the relationship between sensory processing and school function in children in Singapore
PDF
The use of occupational therapists or interdisciplinary teams in the evaluation of assistive technology needs of children with severe physical disabilities in Orange County schools
PDF
A comparison of the play performance of boys with autism and that of boys without disabilities in Taiwan
PDF
Variables Related To Life Satisfaction In Persons With Spinal Cord Injuries
PDF
Parent ratings of children with autism on the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP)
PDF
Hand function in older adults: the relationship between performance on the Jebsen Test and ADL status
PDF
Occupational restructuring by and selected psychological characteristics of older adults after the death of their spouse
Asset Metadata
Creator
Takahashi, Tomohiro
(author)
Core Title
Japanese translation of the Evaluation of Sensory Processing
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Occupational Science
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
health sciences, rehabilitation and therapy,Language, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Parham Diane (
committee chair
), Clark, Florence (
committee member
), Zemke, Ruth (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-27160
Unique identifier
UC11337137
Identifier
1394769.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-27160 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
1394769.pdf
Dmrecord
27160
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Takahashi, Tomohiro
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
health sciences, rehabilitation and therapy
Language, Modern