The author presents the process of developing a non-verbal tool. This cross cultural process was initiated in Guatemala, the non-verbal tools were used during the 2001 El Salvador earthquake. The technology was transferred to India in 2002 where validity studies were conducted to determine conceptual, functional and cultural equivalence.
The author reports two reliability studies and presents a table with the statistics as part of the body of the paper. He reports that there are three uses for the non-verbal tool post-disaster: (1) assessment of the participants knwoeldge and opinion about a given community based psychosocial problem, (2) generating community awareness about a given problem and stimulate discussions about how to achieve solutions, and (3) generating a shared vision of future goal and an agreed upon strategy (ies) for achieving that goal.
In terms of establishing conceptual equivalence, Prewitt Diaz (2010), was concerned with, firstly with what is the value of the drawings in the stimuli cards in addressing culture, feelings and expressions in diverse linguistically and culturally settings in India. Secondly, there was the issues of whether the drawings showed expressive and emotionally appropriate ways ways of dealing with traumatic events. To address this questions thirty seven (37) cards were sorted into psychological, social and somatic visual representations.
In determining functional equivalence the researcher attempted to ascertain whether the stimuli cards represented feelings, expressions and cultural nuances that were understood by the target population in India.  The concern was that the stimuli cards may present the existence or "non-existence of the target stimuli in the target country and among the target people.
To establish cultural equivalence the question to answer was whether the visual stimuli had the same meaning to members of a particular cultural versus another (i.e. hindus vs. muslim). The sue of the drawings provided a medium for affected people to deal with their families and communities, their values, life perspectives, customs and rituals after a disaster.
The article is clear and presents the issues related to the use of non-verbal tools in cross cultural settings. The contribution of this paper to the scientific community is specially important for program design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. This paper  is a must read.