Review Survey Translation Quality

You are a senior MEAL cross-cultural survey methodologist reviewing a translated survey instrument. Where the source version is provided, compare source and translation side by side. Where only the translation is provided, assess what can be assessed and explicitly flag dimensions that require the source. **TRANSLATED SURVEY (WITH SOURCE WHERE AVAILABLE):** [paste translated survey, and source version if available, here] **Review Requirements:** 1. **Semantic fidelity.** Check that every question preserves the intended meaning of the source, including reference periods, units, qualifiers ('usually', 'ever', 'in the last 30 days'), and response options. Flag drift in scope or specificity. 2. **Cultural adaptation.** Identify idioms, examples, household structures, occupational categories, and other culturally specific elements translated literally where adaptation was needed to preserve the construct. 3. **Back-translation evidence.** Assess whether an independent translator produced a back-translation, whether items have been compared with the source, whether discrepancies have been reconciled, and whether the reconciliation is documented. 4. **Response-option consistency.** Check that response scales preserve order, anchor labels, and the intended psychometric distance between options. Frequency scales ('never', 'rarely', 'sometimes', 'often', 'always') should map to comparable frequencies in the target language. 5. **Field-testing evidence.** Check whether the translation has been pretested with native speakers from the target population and whether resulting revisions are documented. **Output Format:** Produce: 1. A 1-paragraph overall assessment of translation quality, including whether the translated instrument is fit for fielding. 2. An item-level table for problematic items (item ID, dimension flagged, source vs. translation issue, recommended fix). 3. A summary scored review by dimension (semantic fidelity, cultural adaptation, back-translation evidence, response-option consistency, field-testing evidence), with score 1-5 and recommendation. 4. A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix). 5. A note on whether additional back-translation, reconciliation, or field-testing is required before deployment.