خود-کارآمدی خلاقانه

17:13 Dec 1, 2014 

The problem of translating self-efficacy as "خودکارآمدی" and "خوداثربخشی" is very common. If you google both terms you will find a huge number of results.

Also I don't think that خودباوری is a good translation for self-efficacy. The first thing that comes to my mind is self-confidence not self-efficacy.

16:50 Dec 1, 2014 

I have just finished some research on this subject and it seems clear that the problem goes back to the translation from English to Persian. The original term would have been "self-efficacy"...all the literature available confirms this.

My guess is that the original translator made a mistake between "efficacy and efficiency".

I would agree with Hesam that we are not supposed to "interpret" or "correct" the text...however, there is nothing preventing us from adding a translator's note with an explanation of what we are discussing here. I have done this several times in the past.

By doing this, we show the reader our professionalism and concern for making sure the correct meaning(s) is/are presented.

08:45 Dec 1, 2014 

Anyway, what I rendered here was exactly according to the meaning based translation. The meaning of "self efficacy" Which is the exact equivalence of
خودباوری
is subtly, yet sharply different from the meaning of
"Self efficiency"
which here is the exact equivalence of
خودکارآمدی.

08:33 Dec 1, 2014 

Whatever scale it is, it is not creative self-efficiency. Thanks to Google Scholar, we have access to the latest research in psychology and there is no scale for creative self-efficiency.

08:21 Dec 1, 2014 

In translation There are a bunch of techniques to avoid such confusion you are referring to. "Explicitation" and "glossing" are just two of them. What I am trying to convey is that we are not allowed to "interpret" the text. According to the meaning based translation that you mentioned there is a fair chance that we twist the meaning by using a word just because it's more frequent or because there is a scale in the field for it. How we can be sure that the author meant خودباوری because there is a scale for it in psychology?
How we can be sure that it's not a new scale?

07:54 Dec 1, 2014 

I agree with Amanollah's argument.

07:49 Dec 1, 2014 

I am only talking about the accuracy of the source text. It talks about a psychological construct that has been measured for some children. We don't have any "creative self-efficiency" scales in psychology. So the correct translation is creative self-efficacy. Your argument is only valid for the accuracy of the source text. I conclude that the author should have used خودباوری خلاقانه instead of خودکارآمدی خلاقانه to avoid confusion. However, if you use a meaning-based translation, then you will end up with an English term which makes no sense to psychologists as they don't have such a construct.

07:20 Dec 1, 2014 

Then should we have a leaning in favor of "frequency" at the cost of "accuracy"? I don't think frequency is a good yardstick here. :-)

07:12 Dec 1, 2014 

I understand your argument, Hessam but since "creative self-efficacy" is a well-recognized scale in psychology, I think the problem is with the Farsi translation of self-efficacy.

If you google "creative self-efficiency" you will only find a few dozens of results.

07:01 Dec 1, 2014 

به زبان فارسی سلیس
Self efficacy
بیشتر به معنای «خودباوری» و
Self efficiency
به معنای «خود کارآمدی» است.

06:48 Dec 1, 2014 

There is a subtle difference between "self-efficacy" and "self efficiency". While the first one means "the extent or strength of one's belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals" the latter "generally describes the extent to which time, effort or cost is well used for the intended task or purpose".
In other word, the first one is about how people "perceive" themselves in relation to the world around them but the second is about how people use materials in hand in order to "act". Thus, the word efficiency is more "action-oriented" than the word efficacy which is more "belief-oriented". And I believe here what is at the center of author's attention is how children of working mothers act in there environment not how they feel about themselves or about their confidence.