Cover not available
Part of
Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Ana María Rojo López and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 10] 2025
► pp. 21–48

Chapter 1
Participant profiling

 | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
 | University of Athens
 | Washington State University
This chapter presents and explains core aspects related to participant selection and description in translation and interpreting research. It illustrates the importance of relevant and detailed participant profiling for research validity, transparency and replication purposes, and suggests best practices for doing so. It also considers various methods and tools of CTIS and neighboring disciplines for information collection of participant cognitive abilities, linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge. Examples are provided of how participant characteristics can also be used as research variables in exploratory or experimental studies. Ethical issues underlying participant recruitment, data collection and testing procedures are also discussed, and solutions compliant with ethical research standards are proposed. Limitations of the development and implementation of participant profile tools are addressed, as well as ways to overcome them.
Article outline
  • 1.The basics
    • 1.1Overview of topics on participant profiling in CTIS
    • 1.2Ethical issues in participant profiling
  • 2.Conceptual aspects
    • 2.1Variables in participant profiling
    • 2.2Measurement in participant profiling
  • 3.Implementation
  • 4.Closing remarks
    • 4.1Overcoming limitations in participant profiling in CTIS
  • Notes
  • Further readings on participant profiling
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (100)
Further readings on participant profiling
Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2020). A validation trajectory for the Washington Assessment of risks and needs of students. Educational Assessment, 25(1), 65–82, Special issue on validity studies.Google Scholar
Mellinger, C. D., & Hanson, T. A. (2018). Quantitative research methods in translation and interpreting studies. Routledge [see, specially, chapters 2 and 7–9].Google Scholar
Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research methodologies in translation studies. Routledge [see, specially, § 2.11 and § 5.4]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
References
Alves, F., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2020). Evolution, challenges, and perspectives for research on cognitive aspects of translation. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 537–554). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bainter, S. A., & Curran, P. J. (2015). Advantages of integrative data analysis for developmental research. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16(1), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolibaugh, C., Vanek, N., & Marsden, E. J. (2021). Towards a credibility revolution in bilingualism research: Open data and materials as stepping stones to more reproducible and replicable research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 801–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, S. (2020). The impact of directionality on the process and product in consecutive interpreting between Chinese and English: Evidence from pen recording and eye tracking. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 34, 100–116.Google Scholar
Chmiel, A. (2016). Directionality and context effects in word translation tasks performed by conference interpreters. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 269–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel A., Janikowski, P., & Cieślewicz, A. (2020). The eye or the ear? Source language interference in sight translation and simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 22(2), 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 324–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collie, R. J., Malmberg, L. E., Martin, A. J., Sammons, P., & Morin, A. J. (2020). A multilevel person-centered examination of teachers’ workplace demands and resources: Links with work-related well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment — Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Retrieved on 4 November 2024 from [URL].
Curran, P. J., Georgeson, A. R., Bauer, D. J. & Hussong, A. M. (2021). Psychometric models for scoring multiple reporter assessments: Applications to integrative data analysis in prevention science and beyond. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(1), 40–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancette, J. (1997). Mapping meaning and comprehension in translation: Theoretical and experimental issues. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.). Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 77–103). Sage.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18(5), 1001–1018.Google Scholar
Diamond, B., & Shreve, G. (2017). Deliberate practice and neurocognitive optimization of translation expertise. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.). The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 476–495). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, Y., & Liu, Y. (2016). Classes in translating and interpreting produce differential gains in switching and updating. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 1297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2008). Semantic access in number word translation: The role of cross-lingual lexical similarity. Experimental Psychology, 55(2), 73–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, A., Schwieter, J. W., & Festman, J. (2020). Cognitive and neurocognitive effects from the unique bilingual experiences of interpreters. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 548755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to design and report experiments. Sage.Google Scholar
Francis, W., Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2014). The consequences of language proficiency and difficulty of lexical access for translation performance and priming, Memory and Cognition, 42(1), 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, A. M., Ibáñez, A., Huepe, D., Houck, A. L., Michon, M., Lezama, C. G., Chadha, S., & Rivera-Rei, Á. (2014). Word reading and translation in bilinguals: The impact of formal and informal translation expertise. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–quickly. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). A validation trajectory for the Washington assessment of risks and needs of students. Educational Assessment, 25(1), 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingual and monolingual language modes. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 502–510). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gutt, E. A. (2014). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context (2nd ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatzidaki, A. (2019). Using experimental approaches to study translation. The what and how. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(1), 35–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Cognitive perspectives of translation. In M. Sidiropoulou (Ed.), Aspects of meaning-making through translation (pp. 106–134). Patakis.Google Scholar
Henrard, S., & Van Daele, A. (2017). Different bilingual experiences might modulate executive tasks advantages: Comparative analysis between monolinguals, translators, and interpreters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervais-Adelman, A., & Babcock, L. (2020). The neurobiology of simultaneous interpreting: Where extreme language control and cognitive control intersect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 740–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honea, H., Castro, I. A., & Peter, P. (2017). Evidence items as signals of marketing competencies and workplace readiness: A practitioner perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(3), 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2006). Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(3), 338–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, S. (2009). Personal diversities and diverse personalities in translation: A study of individual differences. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 17(3), 175–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Trait emotional intelligence and translation: A study of professional translators. Target, 28(1), 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Do translation professionals need to tolerate ambiguity to be successful? A study of the links between tolerance of ambiguity, emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. In I. Lacruz & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Innovation and expansion in translation process research (pp. 77–103). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. (2017). Eye tracking in translation process research. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.). The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 248–264). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, H., Shin, J-A., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2017). Late bilinguals share syntax unsparingly between L1 and L2: Evidence from crosslinguistically similar and different constructions. Language Learning, 68(1), 177–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, A. J., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2010). Language access and language selection in professional translators. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 257–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, A. P., Cowell, E., & Varley, R. A. (2017). Word frequency predicts translation asymmetry. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 49–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iverson, A., French, B. F., Strand, P. S., Gotch, C. M., & McCurley, C. (2018). Understanding school truancy: Risk–need latent profiles of adolescents. Assessment, 25(8), 978–987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izura, C., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word recognition and production of first and second languages. Psicológica, 23(2), 245–281.Google Scholar
(2004). Age of acquisition effects in translation judgement tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(2), 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. N., Larson, M. G., Phillips, C. B., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1992). Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Medical Care, 30(10), 917–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisser, J. E., Wendell, C. R., Spencer, R. J., & Waldstein, S. R. (2012). Neuropsychological performance of native versus non-native English speakers. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 27(7), 749–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koglin, A., & Cunha, R. (2019). Investigating the post-editing effort associated with machine-translated metaphors: A process-driven analysis. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 31.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehka-Paul, O. (2020). Personality matters: The translator’s personality in the process of self-revision. Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English, Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 202–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, P., Zhang, F., Tsai, E., & Puls, B. (2014). Language history questionnaire (LHQ 2. 0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 673–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (1983). A scheme for assessing measurement sensitivity in program evaluation and other applied research. Psychological bulletin, 94(1), 152–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 605–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luo, L., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal fluency performance in bilinguals. Cognition, 114(1), 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for understanding and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marian, V. (2008). Bilingual research methods. In J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processses (pp. 13–37). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mellinger, C. D., & Hanson, T. A. (2018). Quantitative research methods in translation and interpreting studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2020). Methodological considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and quantitative analysis. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 19, 172–190.Google Scholar
Meteyard, L., & Davies, R. A. I. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. (1991). Reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: Bias varies with sample size. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43(4), 907–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. (2009). The way they were. Subject profiling in translation process research. In S. Göpferich, F. Alves, & I. F. Mees (Eds.). Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research (87–108). Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
(2014a). Situating translation expertise. A review with a sketch of a construct. In J. W. Schwieter, & A. Ferreira (Eds.). The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp. 2–56). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2014b). A blurred snapshot of advances in translation process research. MonTI, Special Issue, 1, 49–84.Google Scholar
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘‘laws’’ of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing, and attitude measurement. Printer.Google Scholar
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). In J. Parker, D. Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence (pp. 85–101). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. (2021). “Color-Neutral” is not a thing: Redefining construct definition and representation through a justice-oriented critical antiracist lens. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(4), 82–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo López, A. M. (2017). The role of emotions. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 369–385). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2019). La investigación de la creatividad en traducción: Resultados del proyecto TRANSCREA. Comares.Google Scholar
Rojo López, A. M., & Korpal, P. (2020). Through your skin to your heart and brain: A critical evaluation of physiological methods in cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 191–217.Google Scholar
Rojo López, A. M., & Meseguer Cutillas, P. (2018). Creativity and translation quality: Opposing enemies or friendly allies? Hermes — Journal of Language and Communication in Business 57, 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research methodologies in translation studies. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., Nock, M. K. & Wegner, D. M. (2020). Psychology (3rd ed.). Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Schein, J. D. (1974). Personality characteristics associated with interpreter proficiency. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 7(3), 33–43.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A., & Tarin, K. S. (2021). The impact of a discourse context on bilingual cross-language lexical activation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 879–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shao, Z., Janse, E., Visser, K., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). What do verbal fluency tasks measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 772. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simms, L. J., Zelazny, K., Williams, T. F., & Bernstein, L. (2019). Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 557–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Surrain, S., & Luk, G. (2017). Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and descriptions used in the literature between 2005–2015. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
Szarkowska, A., & Gerber Morón, O. (2018). Viewers can keep up with fast subtitles: Evidence from eye movements. PLoS One, 13(6), e0199331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E., & Hild, A. (2020). Expertise and competence in translation and interpreting. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 425–444). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomczak, E., & Whyatt, B. (2022). Directionality and lexical selection in professional translators: Evidence from verbal fluency and translation tasks. Translation and Interpreting, 14(2), 120–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viorica, M., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vo, T. T., & French, B. F. (2021). An ecological framework for item responding within the context of a youth risk and needs assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(3), 64–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whyatt, B. (2019). In search of directionality effects in the translation process and in the end product. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(1), 79–100.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.  et al.. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3(1): 160018. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and skills in translator behaviour. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woumans, E., Ceuleers, van der Linden, L., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal cognitive control in bilinguals and interpreters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1579–1586.Google Scholar
Yan, T., Keusch, F., & He, L. (2018). The impact of question and scale characteristics on scale direction effects. Survey Practice, 11(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zannirato, A. (2013). The quest for ‘perfection’ multidisciplinary reflections on aptitude and affect in interpreter selection and training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 7(1), 107–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar