Article published In:
Vol. 17:2 (2015) ► pp.226254
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.Google Scholar
Alderson, C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D
(1995) Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bale, R
(2013) Undergraduate consecutive interpreting and lexical knowledge. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7 (1), 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, M
(2007) Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (2), 247–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brace, N., Kemp, R. & Snelgar, R
(2012) SPSS for psychologists (5th ed.). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Brown, D. & Abeywickrama, P
(2010) Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bühler, H
(1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua 5 (4), 231–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J.B
(1966) An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical Translations and Computational Linguistics 9 (3-4), 55–66.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Clifford, A
(2001) Discourse theory and performance-based assessment: Two tools for professional interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 365–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D
(2010) Understanding language testing. Abingdon: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Practical language testing. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Gile, D
(2001) L’evaluation de la qualité de l’interpretation en cours de formation. Meta 46 (2), 379–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, A
(2014) Exploring language assessment and testing. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Green, R
(2013) Statistical analyses for language testers. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F
(2007) Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta 52 (2), 276–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoch, U
(2009a) Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing 26 (2), 275–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, I
(2001) Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta 46 (2), 394–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J
(2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (2), 165–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Luoma, S
(2004) Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, T. & Gillam, R
(1999) Assessment in communication disorders: Some observations on current issues. Language Testing 16 (3), 249–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ng, B.C
(1992) End users’ subjective reaction to the performance of student interpreters. The Interpreters’ Newsletter (Special Issue 1), 35–41.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F
(2001) Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 410–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russo, M
(2005) Simultaneous film interpreting and users’ feedback. Interpreting 7 (1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. & Motta, M
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.Google Scholar
Weigle, S.C
(2002) Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Zannirato, A
(2008) Teaching interpreting and interpreting teaching: A conference interpreter’s overview of second language acquisition. In J. Kearns (Ed.), Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and debates. London and New York: Continuum, 19–38.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C
(2010) Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international vs. a national view. Interpreters’ Newsletter 151, 127–142.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 32 other publications

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3  pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation and Interpreting Assessment Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Chang, Chia-chien
2018. English Language Needs of Chinese/English Interpreting Students: an Error Analysis of the Chinese-to-English Short Consecutive Interpreting Test. English Teaching & Learning 42:3-4  pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Hua, Ying Wang & T. Pascal Brown
2021. The effects of topic familiarity on information completeness, fluency, and target language quality of student interpreters in Chinese–English consecutive interpreting. Across Languages and Cultures 22:2  pp. 176 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Jing & Chao Han
2021. Testing and Assessment of Interpreting in China: An Overview. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Jing, Huabo Yang & Chao Han
2022. Holistic versus analytic scoring of spoken-language interpreting: a multi-perspectival comparative analysis. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 16:4  pp. 558 ff. DOI logo
Chou, Isabelle, Kanglong Liu & Nan Zhao
2021. Effects of Directionality on Interpreting Performance: Evidence From Interpreting Between Chinese and English by Trainee Interpreters. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Duan, Xu, Jie Zhang, Yi Zhang, Yuan Liang, Yingying Huang & Hao Yan
2023. The effect of speech–gesture asynchrony on the neural coupling of interlocutors in interpreter-mediated communication. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 18:1 DOI logo
Han, Chao
2018. Using rating scales to assess interpretation. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 20:1  pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2018. A longitudinal quantitative investigation into the concurrent validity of self and peer assessment applied to English-Chinese bi-directional interpretation in an undergraduate interpreting course. Studies in Educational Evaluation 58  pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2019. A generalizability theory study of optimal measurement design for a summative assessment of English/Chinese consecutive interpreting. Language Testing 36:3  pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2021. Detecting and Measuring Rater Effects in Interpreting Assessment: A Methodological Comparison of Classical Test Theory, Generalizability Theory, and Many-Facet Rasch Measurement. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2021. Analytic rubric scoring versus comparative judgment: a comparison of two approaches to assessing spoken-language interpreting. Meta 66:2  pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2022. Assessing spoken-language interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1  pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2022. Interpreting testing and assessment: A state-of-the-art review. Language Testing 39:1  pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
2022. How does interpreting performance correlate with note-taking process, note-taking product and note-reading process? An eye-tracking and pen-recording study. Across Languages and Cultures 23:2  pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
2023. Note-taking effort in video remote interpreting: effects of source speech difficulty and interpreter work experience. Perspectives 31:4  pp. 724 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Sang-Bin
2019. Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: self-reflection from an action researcher. Educational Action Research 27:2  pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Li, Heng & Bo Yang
2023. I misunderstand you because I worry about you: The relationship between neuroticism and ratings of linguistic interpreting. Personality and Individual Differences 207  pp. 112170 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yanmeng
2021. Exploring a Corpus-Based Approach to Assessing Interpreting Quality. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Maadla, Jekaterina
2023. Dialogue interpreting: The point of contact between Translation Studies, Foreign Language Teaching, and Translation for Other Learning Contexts. STRIDON: Studies in Translation and Interpreting 3:1  pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Ouyang, Qianhua
2018. Assessing meaning-dimension quality in consecutive interpreting training. Perspectives 26:2  pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Pavez, Pedro
2021. Dialogic education in the interpreting classroom: action research for developing simultaneous interpreting quality assessment tools. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 15:3  pp. 360 ff. DOI logo
Shang, Xiaoqi
2021. Developing a Weighting Scheme for Assessing Chinese-to-English Interpreting: Evidence from Native English-Speaking Raters. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Weiwei
2021. Introducing China’s Standards of English Language Ability (CSE)—Interpreting Competence Scales. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Weiwei, Yi Xu, Binhua Wang & Lei Mu
2020. Developing Interpreting Competence Scales in China. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Yan, Hao, Yi Zhang, Yanqin Feng, Yang Li, Yueting Zhang, Yujun Lee, Maoqing Chen, Zijuan Shi, Yuan Liang, Yuqin Hei & Xu Duan
2024. Assessing mental demand in consecutive interpreting: Insights from an fNIRS study. Acta Psychologica 243  pp. 104132 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
2023. Assessment criteria in audio describer training: An investigation of learner perceptions in a university interpreting programme in Hong Kong of China. Interpreting and Society DOI logo
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
2023. Audio description and interpreting training: a comparison of assessment criteria from the perspective of learners. Perspectives 31:6  pp. 1049 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2024. 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.