Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 24:2 (2022) ► pp.221–253

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Does interpreter location make a difference?

A study of remote vs face-to-face interpreting in simulated police interviews

ORCiD logo with link | The University of New South Wales
ORCiD logo with link | University of Newcastle
ORCiD logo with link | Griffith University
 | The University of New South Wales
Published online: 31 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00077.hal
Abstract
Remote interpreting has traditionally been the less preferred option when compared to face-to-face interpreting. But the recent pandemic has shifted the landscape, making remote interpreting the default in many, if not most, settings. Improved videoconferencing technologies have facilitated this transition. The main question is whether remote interpreting has any impact on interpreter performance, including interpreting accuracy. This article presents the results of an experimental study that compared the performance of 103 qualified interpreters in three language combinations (English + Arabic, Mandarin and Spanish) in three conditions (face-to-face vs video remote vs audio remote interpreting) in the context of simulated police interviews. The interpreters’ preferences and perceptions were elicited and analysed, and their performance assessed by independent trained raters using detailed marking criteria. The results showed no significant differences between face-to-face and video interpreting, but significant decrements in audio remote interpreting performance. More than one-third of the interpreters perceived remote interpreting as being more difficult due to technological challenges. No differences emerged between the language groups on any measure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Telephone remote interpreting
  • 3.Video remote interpreting
  • 4.The present study: Research questions
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Research design
    • 5.3Interview simulation materials
    • 5.4Procedures
    • 5.5Assessment of interpreting performance
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Interpreters’ experience in remote interpreting
    • 6.2Interpreter performance
      • 6.2.1Interpreter performance by interpreter location and language
      • 6.2.2Interpreters’ professional competence by interpreter location and language
      • 6.2.3Interpreters’ general preferences
      • 6.2.4Interpreters’ perceptions of the interpreting task
      • 6.2.5Perceptions of interviewers and interviewees of interpreters’ performances according to interpreter location
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1Strengths and limitations
  • 8.Conclusions and recommendations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
ATA [American Translators Association] (2021). ATA Position Paper on Remote Interpreting. [URL] (accessed 23 November).
AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators] (2020a). Recommended remote video interpreting protocols for community interpreting assignments. [URL] (accessed 27 July 2021).
(2020b). Recommended telephone interpreting protocols. [URL] (accessed 27 July 2021).
Azarmina, P. & Wallace, P. (2005). Remote interpretation in medical encounters: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 11 (3), 140–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1), 173–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Technology and interpreting. In M. O’Hagan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation and technology. New York: Routledge, 271–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). “You are just a disembodied voice really”: Perceptions of video remote interpreting by legal interpreters and police officers. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, S. & Taylor, J. L. (2011). AVIDICUS Comparative studies – Part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews. In S. Braun & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Guildford: University of Surrey, 85–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, S., Davitti, E. & Dicerto, S. (2018). Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 144–179.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, S. & Taylor, J. (Eds.) (2012). Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 28 (6), 892–907. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N. (2016). Risks and benefits of interpreter-mediated police interviews. Varstvoslovje: Journal of Criminal Justice and Security 18 (4), 451–471.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., Hale, S. & Brandon, S. E. (2020). Interpreted police interviews: A review of contemporary research. In M. Miller & B. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law. Switzerland: Springer, 83–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gracia-García, R. (2002). Telephone Interpreting: A review of pros and cons. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association, 195–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2010). The need to raise the bar. Court interpreters as specialized experts. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, 440–454.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S., Garcia, I., Hlavac, J., Kim, M., Lai, M., Turner, B. & Slatyer, H. (2012). Improvements to NAATI testing: Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing and assessment. Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N. (2019). Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained professional interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (2), 107–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020a). Interactional management in a simulated police interview: Interpreters’ strategies. In M. Mason & F. Rock (Eds.), The discourse of police interviews. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 200–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. & Doherty, S. (2021). The effects of mode on interpreting performance in a simulated police interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies (online-first). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Taibi, M. & Xu, H. (2020b). Interpreting profanity in police interviews. Multilingua 39 (4), 369–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hlavac, J. (2013). Should interpreters be trained and tested in telephone and video-link interpreting? Responses from practitioners and examiners. International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (1), 34–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howes, L. M. (2019). Community interpreters’ experiences of police investigative interviews: How might interpreters’ insights contribute to enhanced procedural justice? Policing and Society 29 (8), 887–905. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ImPLI Project (2012). Improving police and legal interpreting: Final report. Paris: Institut de Management et de Communication Interculturels.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, A. & Buckley, B. (1975). Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty – Law and Poverty Series Migrants and the Legal System. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, N. (2008). Telephone interpreting: A comprehensive guide to the profession. Bloomington: Trafford Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ko, L. (2006). The need for long-term empirical studies in remote interpreting research: A case study of telephone interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 51, 325–338.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, M. & Pöchhacker, F. (2018). “The Work and Skills ...”: A profile of first-generation video remote interpreters. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 89–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. & Verdier, M. (2013). Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 20 (2), 247–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. & Veyrier, C.-A. (2017). How to show the interpreter on screen? The normative organization of visual ecologies in multilingual courtrooms with video links. Journal of Pragmatics 1071, 147–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Määttä, S. K. (2018). Accuracy in telephone interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 231, 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. New Brunswick/London: AldineTransaction.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A. & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (1), 109–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A. (2018). Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3), 366–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minkley, N., Xu, K. M. & Krell, M. (2021). Analyzing relationships between causal and assessment factors of cognitive load: Associations between objective and subjective measures of cognitive load, stress, interest, and self-concept. Frontiers in Education 61, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B. (2003). Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. [URL] (accessed 19 January 2021).
Oviatt, S. L. & Cohen, P. R. (1992). Spoken language in interpreted telephone dialogues. Computer Speech & Language 6 (3), 277–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozolins, U. (1998). Interpreting and translating in Australia: Current issues and international comparisons. Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Telephone interpreting: Understanding practice and identifying research needs. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 3 (2), 33–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B. A. (2007). A data driven analysis of telephone interpreting. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seeber, K. G., Keller, L., Amos, R. & Hengl, S. (2019). Expectations vs experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting. Interpreting 21 (2), 270–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaffer, S. A. & Evans, J. R. (2018). Interpreters in law enforcement contexts: Practices and experiences according to investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology 32 (2), 150–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skinner, R., Napier, J. & Braun, S. (2018). Mapping of the field. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 11–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1999). Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction. The Translator 5 (2), 247–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wakefield, S. J., Kebbell, M. R., Moston, S. & Westera, N. (2015). Perceptions and profiles of interviews with interpreters: A police survey. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 48 (1), 53–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, J. (2018). “Telephone interpreting should be used only as a last resort.” Interpreters’ perceptions of the suitability, remuneration and quality of telephone interpreting. Perspectives 26 (1), 100–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). “I only interpret the content and ask practical questions when necessary.” Interpreters’ perceptions of their explicit coordination and personal pronoun choice in telephone interpreting. Perspectives 29 (4), 625–642. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, H., Hale, S. & Stern, L. (2020). Telephone interpreting in lawyer–client interviews: An observational study. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 12 (1), 18–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Cavents, Dries, July De Wilde & Jelena Vranjes
2025. Towards a multimodal approach for analysing interpreter's management of rapport challenge in onsite and video remote interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 235 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Chan, Venus
2025. Impact of technology on interpreting practice: a review of studies on technology and interpreting practice from2013 to 2024. Interactive Technology and Smart Education 22:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra
2025. Legal Interpreting. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Julie Lim
2025. Juror perceptions in bilingual interpreted trials. Perspectives 33:5 ► pp. 946 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Yujie, Andrew K F Cheung, Kanglong Liu & Han Xu
2025. Can sentiment analysis help to assess accuracy in interpreting? A corpus-assisted computational linguistic approach. Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Klomfar, Sophie, Anna Teufel, Gernot Gerger, Maria Kletečka-Pulker, Klara Doppler, Magdalena Eitenberger & Sabine Völkl-Kernstock
2025. Working experiences of remote interpreters in health care settings—insights from Austria and Germany. Frontiers in Public Health 13 DOI logo
Leanza, Yvan, Noelia Burdeus-Domingo, Kossigan Kokou-Kpolou & François René De Cotret
2025. Training healthcare workers and untrained interpreters in remote collaboration amidst COVID-19. PEC Innovation 6 ► pp. 100369 ff. DOI logo
Maryns, Katrijn & Rebecca Tipton
2025. Public Service Interpreting. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Perez, Christina O. & Yikang Zhang
2025. Bilingual Eyewitnesses: Cognitive, Linguistic, and Emotional Factors Affecting Bilingual Memory. In Advances in Psychology and Law [Advances in Psychology and Law, 7], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Han, Jinghang Gu, Kanglong Liu & Qinyi Li
2025. Can professional interpreters truly convey the speaker’s sentiment? Exploring the potential of a computational approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 40:2 ► pp. 639 ff. DOI logo
Peng, Xuejiao, Xiangling Wang & Guangjiao Chen
2024. Text availability and the speaker’s visibility in simultaneous interpreting: effects on the process, product, and interpreters’ perceptions. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Viljanmaa, Anu
2024. Wenn der Kontext selbst erarbeitet werden muss. In Translation im Kontext [TRANSÜD. Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens, 146], ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Han
2024. “Please make sure we don’t get this interpreter again”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:2 ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2024. Justice Under Microscope: Analysing Mandarin Chinese Markers in Virtual Courtroom Discourse. Discourse Studies 26:1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Ernberg, Emelie, Charlotte Löfgren, Linnea Koponen & Mikaela Magnusson
2023. Swedish Courts’ Evaluations of Interpreter-Mediated Child Investigative Interviews. Child Maltreatment 28:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina & Sandra Hale
2023. Exploring mixed methods in interpreting research. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Vitalaru, Bianca & Mustapha Taibi
2023. Spain: Educating Community Interpreters and Translators in Unprecedented Times—A Spanish Case Study. In Educating Community Interpreters and Translators in Unprecedented Times [Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, ], ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
ŞAHİN ER, Özden
2023. A corpus-based study of problems in telephone interpreting. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :Ö13 ► pp. 1493 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue