How interpreter-translators are assessed and hired in the market
A case study of South Korea’s recruiting process of interpreter-translators
In South Korea where there is no national accreditation system for translators and interpreters, it is left to the
respective employers to devise and administer an assessment instrument for hiring translators and interpreters. While studies
calling for reliable and valid testing and assessment in the field of Translation and Interpretation Studies have increased during
the past decade, empirical research on how tests and assessments are carried out in the marketplace, especially outside of Europe
and North America, remain scarce. This study closely examines how tests and assessments are carried out at hiring by tapping into
questions of how tests are developed, by whom, and who rates the tests and on which criteria. Then, the soundness of the overall
hiring process is evaluated based on the six qualities of Bachman and Palmer’s Test Usefulness Model; construct validity,
reliability, authenticity, interactiveness, impact, and practicality.
The study found that (1) the hiring process involves three stages of assessment: document screening, interpreting
and translation tests, and one-on-one interview; (2) the interpreting and translation tests are developed, administered and rated
by a combined group of experts: professors of interpreting and translation studies; professional interpreters/translators;
subject-matter experts at the institutions; (3) the overall usefulness of the tests based on Bachman and Palmer’s Test Usefulness
Model is medium to high; and (4) the employers of interpreter-translators look for qualities beyond interpreting/translation
skills upon hiring. The implications of the findings on professional translators and interpreters and educators are discussed,
followed by suggestions for future research.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Test and assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies
- 2.2Bachman and Palmer’s Test Usefulness Model
- 3.Method
- 3.1Data collection
- 3.2Data analysis
- 4.Findings
- 4.1Overall hiring process and tests
- 4.1.1Institution A – Step 1
- 4.1.2Institution A – Step 2
- 4.1.3Institution A – Step 3
- 4.1.4Institution B
- 4.2Test Usefulness based on Bachman and Palmer’s model
- 4.2.1Construct validity
- 4.2.2Reliability
- 4.2.3Authenticity
- 4.2.4Interactiveness
- 4.2.5Impact
- 4.2.6Practicality
- 5.Discussions and conclusion
-
References
References (19)
References
Akbari, A.; and Segers, W. 2017. “Translation Evaluation Methods and the End-Product: Which One Paves the Way for a More Reliable and Objective Assessment?” SKASE Journal of translation and interpretation 11 (1): 2–24.
Angelelli, C. 2013. “Forword”. In Assessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari; and Roelof van Deemter, 9–11. Bern: Peter Lang.
Bachman, L.; and Palmer, A. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: OUP.
Campbell, S.; and Hale, S. 2003. “Translation and Interpreting Assessment in the Context of Educational Measurement”. In Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives, ed. by G. Anderman; and M. Rogers. 205–224. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Carroll, J. B. 1966. “An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations”. Mechanical Translation 91: 55–56.
Fulcher, G. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Ltd.
Gale, N. K.; Heath, G.; Cameron, E.; Rashid, S.; and Redwood, S. 2013. “Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research”. BMC medical research methodology 13–117.
Kim, Y. 2008. “Assessment System in Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation”. Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education 6 (2): 23–36.
Kim, J. 2016. “Quality Assessment of Consecutive Interpretation: An Example from Korean-Chinese Interpretation”. Interpreting and Translation Studies 20 (1): 25–47.
Lui, M.; Chang, C.; and Wu, S. 2008. “Interpretation Evaluation Practices: Comparison of Eleven Schools in Taiwan, China, Britain, and the USA”. Compilation and Translation Review 1 (1): 1–42.
Liu, M. 2013. “Design and Analysis of Taiwan’s Interpretation Certification Examination”. In Assessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari; and Roelof van Deemter: 15–33. Bern: Peter Lang.
Messick, S. 1989. “Validity”. In Educational Measurement (3rd ed.), ed. by R. L. Linn. 13–104. American Council on Education, Washington (WA): Macmillan.
Park, H. 2015. “Quality Assessment in Korean Military Interpreting: Focusing on the Assessment of Interpreting Officers”. Interpreting and Translation Studies 19 (2): 160–181.
Pyoun, H. 2004. “A case study on the evaluation of AB interpretation according to different teacher profiles”. Conference Interpretation and Translation 6 (2): 207–224.
Salmi, L.; and Penttila, A. 2013. “The System of Authorizing Translators in Finland”. In Assessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari; and Roelof van Deemter, 15–33. Bern: Peter Lang.
Srivastava, A.; and Thomson, B. 2009. “Framework Analysis: A Qualitative Methodology for Applied Research Note Policy Research”. JOAAG 4 (2): 72–79.
Wu, F. 2013. “How Do We Assess Students in the Interpreting Examinations?” In Assessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari; and Roelof van Deemter, 15–33. Bern: Peter Lang.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Conde Ruano, José Tomás
2024.
Translation Assessors In and Out of Their Element.
Diacrítica 37:3
► pp. 224 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.