Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 17:2 (2015) ► pp.226–254
Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances
Published online: 3 September 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.04lee
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.04lee
This article reports on the process of developing an analytic rating scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances. The development process was divided into three phases. First, a total of 42 criteria for interpreter performance assessment were identified from the related literature and grouped into three categories: ‘content’, ‘form’ and ‘delivery’. Second, these criteria were rated by importance in a questionnaire survey of 31 interpreter trainers. In this phase a total of 20 criteria were removed due to statistical concerns, while 22 criteria — seven criteria for content, seven for form, and eight for delivery — were retained to construct a draft rating scale. Third, to determine the appropriate weighting for each category, two interpreter trainers used the 22-item draft scale to rate 33 consecutive interpretations by Korean undergraduate students. A statistical analysis of these assessments showed that the content category should be assigned an effective weight of 2, while the other categories need not be weighted (i.e., weighting value: 1).
Keywords: rating, criteria, Korean, consecutive interpreting, assessment
References (48)
Alderson, C. (1991). Bands and scores. In C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy. London: Modern English Publications/British Council/Macmillan.
Alderson, C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bale, R. (2013). Undergraduate consecutive interpreting and lexical knowledge. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7 (1), 27–50.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2007). Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (2), 247–267.
Brown, D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua 5 (4), 231–235.
Carroll, J.B. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical Translations and Computational Linguistics 9 (3-4), 55–66.
Chiaro, D. & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the World Wide Web. Meta 49 (2), 279–293.
Choi, J.Y. (2013). Assessing the impact of text length on consecutive interpreting. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 85–96.
Clifford, A. (2001). Discourse theory and performance-based assessment: Two tools for professional interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 365–378.
. (2005). Putting the exam to the test: Psychometric validation and interpreter certification. Interpreting 7 (1), 97–131.
Fulcher, G. (2008). Criteria for evaluating language quality. In E. Shohamy & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment. New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC, 157–176.
Gile, D. (2001). L’evaluation de la qualité de l’interpretation en cours de formation. Meta 46 (2), 379–393.
Green, A. & Hawkey, R. (2010). Marking assessments: Rating scales and rubrics. In C. Commbe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan & S. Storynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 299–306.
Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F. (2007). Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta 52 (2), 276–289.
Hartley, A., Mason, I., Peng, G. & Perez, I. (2003). Peer and self-assessment in conference interpreter training. [URL] (accessed 7 January 2014).
Hodges, B. (n.d.). Assessment of competence of trainees in psychiatry. [URL] (accessed 7 August 2014).
Hunter, D., Jones, R. & Randhawa, B. (1996). The use of holistic versus analytic scoring for large-scale assessment of writing. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 11 (2), 61–85.
Kim, Y.-H. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of using the EDD checklist in ESL academic writing assessment: A qualitative study. English Language Teaching 23 (3), 17–39.
Knoch, U. (2009a). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing 26 (2), 275–304.
. (2009b). Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Bern: Peter Lang.
Kopczyński, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research into simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–99.
Lee, J. (2008). Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (2), 165–184.
Liu, M. (2013). Design and analysis of Taiwan’s interpretation certification examination. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 163–178.
Liu, M. & Chiu, Y.-H. (2009). Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment. Interpreting 11 (2), 244–266.
Marquardt, T. & Gillam, R. (1999). Assessment in communication disorders: Some observations on current issues. Language Testing 16 (3), 249–269.
Ng, B.C. (1992). End users’ subjective reaction to the performance of student interpreters. The Interpreters’ Newsletter (Special Issue 1), 35–41.
North, B. (2003). Scales for rating language performance: Descriptive models, formulation styles, and presentation formats, TOEFL Monograph No. MS-24. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 410–425.
Pradas Macías, M. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting 8 (1), 25–43.
Riccardi, A. (2002). Evaluation in interpretation: Macrocriteria and microcriteria. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–126.
Roberts, R.P. (2000). Interpreter assessment tools for different settings. In R.P. Roberts, S.E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), Critical link 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 103–130.
Russo, M. (2005). Simultaneous film interpreting and users’ feedback. Interpreting 7 (1), 1–26.
Schjoldager, A. (1995). Assessment of simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–195.
Setton, R. & Motta, M. (2007). Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting 9 (2), 199–230.
Skaaden, H. (2013). Assessing interpreter aptitude in a variety of languages. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 35–50.
Wu, F.S. (2013). How do we assess students in the interpreting examinations? In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 15–33.
Cited by (48)
Cited by 48 other publications
Lei, Zhenhui, Piotr Blumczynski & Chen-En Ho
Zhang, Xueni, Binghan Zheng, Rui Wang & Haoshen He
Fan, Jiashun, Pingping Hu & Zhuxuan Zhao
Han, Chao, Xiaolei Lu & Shirong Chen
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Amanda Hiu Tung Chow
Yang, Chunwen, Shuai Hou & Jing Chen
Zhang, Yi, Xu Duan, Yanqin Feng, Yuan Liang, Yingying Huang & Hao Yan
Guo, Wei, Xun Guo, Junkang Huang & Sha Tian
Li, Fengying & Linling Fu
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2024. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:2 ► pp. 234 ff.
Shafiei, Shilan
Yan, Hao, Yi Zhang, Yanqin Feng, Yang Li, Yueting Zhang, Yujun Lee, Maoqing Chen, Zijuan Shi, Yuan Liang, Yuqin Hei & Xu Duan
Duan, Xu, Jie Zhang, Yi Zhang, Yuan Liang, Yingying Huang & Hao Yan
Li, Heng & Bo Yang
Maadla, Jekaterina
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
Chen, Jing, Huabo Yang & Chao Han
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
Chen, Hua, Ying Wang & T. Pascal Brown
Chen, Jing & Chao Han
Chou, Isabelle, Kanglong Liu & Nan Zhao
Han, Chao & Xiaolei Lu
Han, Chao & Xiaolei Lu
Han, Chao & Xiaolei Lu
Han, Chao, Rui Xiao & Wei Su
2021. Assessing the fidelity of consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 245 ff.
Liu, Yanmeng
Pavez, Pedro
Shang, Xiaoqi
Wang, Weiwei
Han, Chao, Sijia Chen, Rongbo Fu & Qin Fan
2020. Modeling the relationship between utterance fluency and raters’ perceived fluency of consecutive
interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2 ► pp. 211 ff.
Wang, Weiwei, Yi Xu, Binhua Wang & Lei Mu
Lee, Sang-Bin
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
Chang, Chia-chien
Han, Chao
2018. Using rating scales to assess interpretation. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 20:1 ► pp. 63 ff.
Han, Chao
Han, Chao
Han, Chao
Han, Chao
Han, Chao
2022. Assessing spoken-language interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 59 ff.
Han, Chao
Han, Chao
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. 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.
