Cross-cultural adaptation into Gujarati of the English version of Standardized Assessment of Personality – Abbreviated Scale, Level of Personality Functioning Scale 2.0—Brief Form and Brief Emotion Dysregulation Scale

Background: Valid assessment of psychological constructs requires culturally adapted instruments that preserve semantic and conceptual integrity. Despite their widespread global use, Gujarati versions of the Standardized Assessment of Personality – Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS), Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), and Brief Emotion Dysregulation Scale (BEDS) are not available. Aim and Objective: The study was undertaken to translate, culturally adapt, and psychometrically evaluate the Gujarati versions of SAPAS, LPFS-BF 2.0, and BEDS. Material and Method: Following established cross-cultural adaptation guidelines, forward–backward translation, expert review, and cognitive debriefing were conducted. Seventy-five bilingual healthy participants completed Gujarati and English versions of all scales in a counterbalanced order. Linguistic and conceptual equivalence, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω), test–retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and convergent validity were assessed. Post hoc qualitative feedback was obtained to explore item-level response differences. Result: SAPAS demonstrated strong linguistic equivalence, with all item-wise mean differences within acceptable thresholds. LPFS-BF 2.0 and BEDS showed minor deviations for selected items, primarily involving abstract or reverse-scored content. Conceptual equivalence was largely preserved across all instruments. Internal consistency was excellent for LPFS-BF 2.0 (Gujarati α =0.827), borderline yet acceptable for SAPAS, and modest for BEDS. Test–retest reliability was moderate to good across scales (ICC: 0.50–0.76). Convergent validity was strong for all scales (r = 0.59–0.62). Qualitative findings suggested that discrepancies arose from variability in English comprehension, rather than translation inaccuracy. Conclusion: Gujarati versions of SAPAS and LPFS-BF 2.0 demonstrate strong cross-cultural equivalence and reliability, supporting their use in Gujarati-speaking populations. BEDS shows acceptable performance, but requires further evaluation in diverse and clinical samples.