Skip to main content

Table 3 Cultural adaptation

From: Systematic review: cultural adaptation and feasibility of screening for autism in non-English speaking countries

The ecological validity framework
1. Language: Does the study report the use of a culturally appropriate language, idioms, regionalism words, and slang in both written and verbal forms while adopting/screening for autism?
2. Persons: Does the study highlight ethnic and interactional match considerations between the clients and assessors in the screening process?
3. Metaphors: Does the study employ any verbal (e.g., folk sayings) and/or visual forms (e.g., image, figure) of symbols that are shared with the population, while adopting instruments/screening for autism?
4. Contents: Does the study consider adapting the instruments’ content to match the uniqueness culture of the study group?
1. Concepts: Does the study present any efforts to adapt clear and consistent constructs to the targeted culture?
2. Goals: Are the screening goals constructed within the context of cultural values, customs, and traditions?
3. Methods: Do the study methods facilitate smooth implementation for screening within the client’s cultural context?
4. Context: Does the study consider the social, economic, historical, and political contexts of clients while screening?
Author Language Persons Metaphors Content Concepts Goals Methods Context
Albores-Gallo et al. [50] + +
Ben-Sasson and Carter [13] + + +
Beuker et al. [51] +
Canal-Bedia et al. [53] + +   + +
Carakovac et al. [56] + +
Fombonne et al. [49] +
Kamio et al. [46] +   
Kamio et al. [47] + +
Kara et al. [57] +   + +
Kondolot et al. [55] +    +   + +
Mohamed et al. [43] +
Mohammadian et al. [45] +
Nygren et al. [54] + + +
Perera et al. [53] + +
Perera et al. [19] + + + +
Samadi and McConkey [7] + +
Seif Eldin et al. [42] + +
Seung et al. [48] + +
Wong et al. [44] + + +