What Should You Do When There Is No Direct Translation for an Important Research Concept?

What if the participant's language simply has no equivalent word?

Research has its own vocabulary: randomization, placebo, blinding, confidentiality, de-identification, withdrawal, incidental findings, data sharing, genetic analysis, and many other terms. Some translate neatly between languages. Others do not.

Sometimes a technically similar word exists but carries a different everyday meaning. Sometimes the concept itself is unfamiliar. In other cases, translators may be tempted to borrow or transliterate the original term, producing a word that sounds impressively scientific while explaining almost nothing to the participant.

The goal of informed consent is not lexical symmetry between two documents. It is sufficiently accurate understanding. When no direct translation exists, researchers therefore need to preserve the concept rather than force an artificial one-word equivalent.

Translate the meaning, not necessarily the individual word

Conceptual equivalence matters more than word-for-word equivalence

Research ethics requires understandable meaning, not identical vocabulary

CIOMS states that informed-consent information must be provided in plain language understandable to the prospective participant and describes consent as a two-way communicative process. It also emphasizes that simply reciting a written document is insufficient and that oral explanation and appropriate audiovisual aids may be used to support understanding.

Similarly, U.S. HHS regulations require consent information to be presented in language understandable to the participant or legally authorized representative. OHRP advises researchers to replace technical terminology with ordinary language and to design consent procedures around what the intended participant population can understand.

None of this requires every source-language term to have a one-word target-language twin. What matters is whether the participant receives the meaning necessary to make an informed decision.

First determine whether the problem is the word or the concept

Suppose there is no familiar local word corresponding precisely to "randomization." That could mean several different things. The language may have an accurate phrase such as "assignment by chance." A technical equivalent may exist but be unfamiliar outside professional circles. Or the underlying practice of allocating research participants by chance may itself be unfamiliar.

Those situations need different solutions.

If only the technical term is missing, an ordinary descriptive phrase may be enough. If the concept itself is unfamiliar, the researcher may need a fuller explanation of how the process works and what it means for the participant. This connects directly to the broader problem of explaining research when research itself is unfamiliar.

Use an explanatory phrase when one word cannot carry the meaning

A short descriptive phrase is often safer than forcing an approximate word into service. Randomization might be explained as assignment to a study group by chance rather than by the participant or researcher choosing the group. Blinding might require explaining who will and will not know which intervention was assigned.

The exact explanation depends on the study. Researchers should resist turning technical concepts into generic dictionary definitions when their practical meaning differs across protocols.

Do not transliterate a term and assume participants understand it

Transliteration reproduces the sound or written form of a word using another writing system or local pronunciation. It can be useful when a borrowed term is already widely understood in the target language.

But an imported technical word may create only the appearance of translation. A participant who hears a localized version of "placebo" or "randomization" may still have no idea what it means.

If a borrowed term is retained, define it in ordinary language when understanding the term matters to the participation decision.

Examples can clarify concepts, but examples must preserve the relevant feature

Concrete examples can make abstract research concepts easier to understand. To explain random allocation, for instance, an approved explanation might compare the mechanism with drawing lots or another familiar chance process, provided the comparison accurately represents the relevant feature of the study.

The danger is that analogies carry additional meanings. A lottery may imply a prize. A sealed envelope may suggest secrecy rather than allocation concealment. Saying that coded data are "anonymous" may imply that nobody can reconnect the data to the participant when a code key actually exists.

Use the analogy to introduce the idea, then state what actually happens in the study. The comparison should illuminate the concept rather than quietly replace it.

Some concepts should be explained by contrast

When no direct equivalent exists, explaining what a concept is and what it is not can be particularly useful.

For example, if a participant assumes that random assignment means the doctor chooses a group, the researcher can explain that the assignment is determined by the study's chance procedure and is not selected according to which intervention the researcher thinks is personally best for that participant.

Similarly, confidentiality can be distinguished from complete anonymity when the research team can still identify participants. Withdrawal can be explained as stopping future participation while also clarifying what may happen to information or specimens already collected, according to the approved protocol.

Contrast is useful because it targets the misunderstanding most likely to alter the participant's decision.

Translation should preserve uncertainty

One of the easiest meanings to lose across languages is uncertainty. Terms such as "may," "might," "possible," "expected," "experimental," and "unknown" can become stronger or weaker during translation.

A statement that an intervention "may help" must not become a statement that it "will help." A possible risk should not become inevitable, but neither should a reasonably foreseeable risk disappear behind reassuring language.

FDA requires information given during consent to be understandable to the participant, while OHRP emphasizes that consent information should enable a voluntary participation decision. Preserving the degree of certainty is therefore part of preserving the information itself.

Translation requires both linguistic and research knowledge

A translator may recognize that a phrase sounds unnatural without knowing how much its scientific meaning can safely change. A researcher may understand the scientific concept perfectly while lacking the linguistic knowledge needed to recognize that the translated wording suggests something else.

Difficult terms therefore benefit from collaboration. Depending on the study, this may involve a competent translator, interpreter, bilingual researcher, subject-matter specialist, community reviewer, or members of the intended participant population.

This is one reason the question of whether a consent form needs professional translation cannot be answered solely by looking at translator credentials. The process needs enough expertise to preserve meaning.

Review the translation with people who did not create it

The person who produced a translation may read it through the lens of what they already know the source document means. An independent reader does not have that advantage.

OHRP notes that members of the intended participant population can help identify consent language they do not understand. Its 2024 draft guidance on facilitating understanding also suggests that review by people unfamiliar with the research can be particularly useful for forms translated into additional languages.

Where feasible and appropriate, ask reviewers what they believe the translated concept means rather than merely whether the translation "looks correct."

Check comprehension during the actual consent discussion

No translation methodology can guarantee what an individual participant understands. The final quality check happens in the consent interaction.

Instead of asking whether the participant understands "randomization," ask how they think their study group will be chosen. Instead of asking whether they understand confidentiality, ask who they think may be able to see their information.

If their explanation reveals a different concept from the one intended, the researcher has learned something important about either the translation, the explanation, or both.

Document and approve substantive solutions rather than improvising repeatedly

If a difficult concept predictably arises with participants using a particular language, the research team should develop a consistent explanation rather than allowing each staff member or interpreter to invent one independently.

Participant-facing consent materials and substantive revisions generally fall within ethics oversight. OHRP states that consent procedures and documentation should be revised when deficiencies in accuracy or completeness are identified, with revisions reviewed and approved by the IRB before use except where immediate hazards must be eliminated.

Researchers should therefore follow the relevant ethics committee's process for approving revised translations, explanatory scripts, diagrams, or other consent aids.

Translating a concept that has no familiar one-word equivalent

The successful translation is not necessarily a single replacement word. It is an explanation that allows the participant to understand the decision-relevant concept accurately.

Common mistakes when research terminology does not translate neatly

Treat difficult concepts as translation problems to solve, not words to hide

Flag difficult terms during translation rather than waiting for participants to become confused. Ask translators and bilingual reviewers to identify words for which the target language lacks a natural equivalent or where the nearest equivalent could change the meaning.

A useful internal question is: if a participant understood our translated explanation exactly as written, would they hold the right idea about the study? If the answer is no, the translation is not finished.

Before using a translated explanation of a difficult concept

Questions about research concepts with no direct translation

Conceptual accuracy matters more than matching words

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.