OBJECTIVES: Per ISPOR and FDA guidelines, conducting cognitive interviews during the linguistic validation of COAs is recommended to increase comprehension and conceptual equivalence between language versions. However, multiple methods are available to conduct cognitive interviews, partially enabled by the increased availability and ease of technology to facilitate the interviews. This poster will review the various methodologies that can be used to conduct cognitive interviews.  METHODS: A review of cognitive interview methodologies from past projects as well as potential alternative methods was conducted, including: 1) in-person interviews, 2) telephone interviews, and 3) interviews via video conferencing. Consideration was given to ease of scheduling, cost, and quality/comphrensiveness of feedback.  RESULTS: Each methodology presented pros and cons, including: 1) in-person interviews enable the interviewer to gauge the respondent’s body language, signaling where he/she may be having difficulty with an item but are unable to verbalize feedback; however, the interviews are more costly and present organizational challenges (i.e. scheduling, travel, etc.); 2) telephone interviews enable easier scheduling of interviews and reduce cost, but do not allow the interviewer to gauge the body language of the respondent and respondents may not feel comfortable providing feedback over the telephone; 3) interviews via video conferencing may enable easier scheduling of interviews, allow an interviewer to gauge the body language of the respondent, and provide a lower-cost alternative, but the availability of the technology can present challenges in certain regions.  CONCLUSIONS: There are various ways of conducting cognitive interviews during the linguistic validation process of COAs. Further research is required to develop industry guidelines to ensure that the interviews are able to achieve their purpose: garnering accurate and meaningful feedback from respondents in order to increase comprehension and cross-cultural equivalence of multiple language versions.