Article published in:
Vol. 21:2 (2019) ► pp. 245269


Bartłomiejczyk, M.
(2007) Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (2), 247–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bejar, I. I.
(2012) Rater cognition: Implications for validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 31 (3), 2–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, S.
(2001) Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects. Target 13 (2), 241–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bontempo, K. & Napier, J.
(2011) Evaluating emotional stability as a predictor of interpreter competence and aptitude for interpreting. Interpreting 13 (1), 85–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A.
(2010) The think-aloud controversy in second language research. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, H.
(1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua 5 (4), 231–235.Google Scholar
Chabasse, C. & Kader, S.
(2014) Putting interpreting admissions exams to the test. Interpreting 16 (1), 19–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 266 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle 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
Cifuentes-Férez, P. & Rojo, A.
(2015) Thinking for translating: A think-aloud protocol on the translation of manner-of-motion verbs. Target 27 (2), 273–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, A.
(2005) Putting the exam to the test: Psychometric validation and interpreter certification. Interpreting 7 (1), 97–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P.
(1996) Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D.
(2000) Exploring strategies in test-taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 127–150.Google Scholar
De Gregoris, G.
(2014) The limits of expectations vs. assessment questionnaire-based surveys on simultaneous interpreting quality: The need for a gestaltic model of perception. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione 16, 57–87.Google Scholar
DeRember, M. L.
(1998) Writing assessment: Raters’ elaboration of the rating task. Assessing Writing 5 (1), 7–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. & Tiselius, E.
(2014) Retrospection in interpreting and translation: Explaining the process? MonTI Special Issue 1, 177–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A.
(2000/2001) Expertise in interpreting: An expert-performance perspective. Interpreting 5 (2), 187–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A.
(1993) Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1998) How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity 5 (3), 178–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eyckmans, J., Anckaert, P. & Segers, W.
(2016) Translation and interpretation skills. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 219–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garzone, G.
(2003) Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. In A. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Green, A.
(1998) Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Han, C.
(2015) Investigating rater severity/leniency in interpreter performance testing: A multifaceted Rasch measurement approach. Interpreting 17 (2), 255–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias Fernández, E.
(2013) Unpacking delivery criteria in interpreting quality assessment. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 51–66.Google Scholar
[ p. 267 ]
Ivanova, A.
(2000) The use of retrospection in research on simultaneous interpreting. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L.
(2003) Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., Jensen, A., Jensen, E. H. & Anderson, M. S.
(2002) Towards characterizing translator expertise, knowledge and know-how: Some findings using TAPs and experimental methods. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 172–197.Google Scholar
Jourdenais, R.
(2001) Cognition, instruction and protocol analysis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 354–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Künzli, A.
(2007) Translation revision: A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and directions in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.
(2009) Toward more reliable assessment of interpreting performance. In S. Hale, U. Ozolins & L. Stern (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting – a shared responsibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-B.
(2014) An interpreting self-efficacy (ISE) scale for undergraduate students majoring in consecutive interpreting: Construction and preliminary validation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (2), 183–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, D.
(2004) Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translation processes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (3), 301–313. CrossrefGoogle 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
(2015) Assessment. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge, 20–22.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W.
(2005) The translation process: Methods and problems of its investigation. Meta 50 (2), 597–608. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J.
(2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Naumenko, O.
(2015) Improving performance assessment score validation practices: An instructional module on generalizability theory. Working Papers on Language and Diversity in Education I (1), 1–17.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, S.
(2014) Variability in assessor responses to undergraduate essays: An issue for assessment quality in higher education. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(2001) Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 410–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Assessing aptitude for interpreting: The SynCloze test. Interpreting 13 (1), 106–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 268 ]
Pradas Macías, M.
(2006) Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting 8 (1), 25–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P.
(1995) Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rallis, S. F. & Rossman, G. B.
(2003) Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A pragmatic framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 491–512.Google Scholar
Russell, D. & Winston, B.
(2014) Tapping into the interpreting process: Using participant reports to inform the interpreting process in educational settings. Translation & Interpreting 6 (1), 102–127.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J.
(2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S.
(2013) Research methodologies in translation studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sawyer, D. B.
(2004) Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sun, S.
(2011) Think-aloud-based translation process research: Some methodological considerations. Meta 56 (4), 928–951. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E.
(2009) Revisiting Carroll’s scales. In C. Angelelli & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F. & Sandberg, J. A. C.
(1994) The think-aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vik-Tuovinen, G. V.
(2002) Retrospection as a method of studying the process of simultaneous interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 63–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, M.
(2013) Rethinking bifurcated testing models in the court interpreter certification process. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 67–83.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Napier, J., Goswell, D. & Carmichael, A.
(2015) The design and application of rubrics to assess signed language interpreting performance. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (1), 83–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G.
(2005) Current approaches to researching second language learner processes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 90–111. CrossrefGoogle 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: Peter Lang, 15–33.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C.
(2010) Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international vs. a national view. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, 127–142.Google Scholar
[ p. 269 ]
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 61 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Wang, Weiwei
2021.  In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 15 ff. Crossref logo
Wang, Weiwei, Yi Xu, Binhua Wang & Lei Mu
2020. Developing Interpreting Competence Scales in China. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. 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.