Relating utterance fluency to perceived fluency of interpreting
A partial replication and a mini meta-analysis
The prospect of automated scoring for interpreting fluency has prompted investigations into the predictability of
human raters’ perceived fluency based on acoustically measured utterance fluency. Recently,
Han, Chen, Fu and Fan (2020) correlated ten utterance fluency measures with raters’ perceived fluency ratings. To
verify previous correlational patterns, the present study partially replicated
Han et al.
(2020). Our analysis shows that most of the correlations observed in
Han et al.
(2020) were successfully replicated. To produce overall interim estimates of the true relationships, we conducted a
mini meta-analysis of correlation coefficients reported in six relevant studies, informed by the “continuously cumulating
meta-analysis” approach (
Braver et al. 2014). We found that phonation time ratio, mean
length of run, and speech rate had relatively strong correlations with perceived fluency. We discuss these findings in light of
automated fluency assessment and the need for replication and meta-analysis in translation and interpreting studies.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Relationship between utterance fluency and perceived fluency of interpreting
- The target study for replication: Han et al. (2020)
- Replication research
- Meta-analysis
- Methods
- The replication study
- Data source
- Calculation of utterance fluency measures
- Measurement of perceived fluency
- Data analysis
- Mini meta-analysis
- Results
- The replication results
- Replication analysis
- Mini meta-analysis results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (43)
References
Allen, Mike and Raymond Preiss. 1993. “Replication
and meta-analysis: A necessary connection.” Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality 8(6): 9–20.
Asendorpf, Jens B., et al. 2013. “Recommendations
for increasing replicability in psychology.” European Journal of
Personality 27(2): 108–119. 

Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction
to
meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley. 

Brandt, Mark J. et al. 2014. “The Replication
Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 501: 217–224. 

Braver, Sanford L., Felix J. Thoemmes, and Robert Rosenthal. 2014. “Continuously
cumulating meta-analysis and replicability.” Perspectives on Psychological
Science 9(3): 333–342. 

Cecot, Michela. 2001. “Pauses
in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’
performances.” The Interpreters’
Newsletter 111: 63–85.
Collard, Camille and Bart Defrancq. 2020. Disfluencies
in simultaneous interpreting a corpus-based study with special reference to
sex. In New empirical perspectives on translation and
interpreting, ed. by Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems and Bart Defrancq, 264–299. New York: Routledge. 

Corey, David M., William P. Dunlap, and Michael J. Burke. 1998. “Averaging
correlations: Expected values and bias in combined Pearson rs and Fisher’s z
transformations.” Journal of General
Psychology 125(3): 245–262. 

Crandall, Christian S. and Jeffrey W. Sherman. 2016. “On
the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress.” Journal of
Experimental Social
Psychology 661: 93–99. 

Easley, Richard W., Charles S. Madden, and Mark G. Dunn. 2000. “Conducting
marketing science: The role of replication in the research process.” Journal of Business
Research 48(1): 83–92. 

Gile, Daniel. 2009. “Interpreting
studies: a critical view from
within.” MonTI 11: 135–155. 

Goh, Jin X., Judith A. Hall, and Robert Rosenthal. 2016. “Mini
meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how.” Social and
Personality Psychology
Compass 10(10): 535–549. 

Han, Chao and Ke-rui An. 2021. “Using
unfilled pauses to measure (dis)fluency in English-Chinese consecutive interpreting: in search of an optimal pause
threshold(s).” Perspectives 29(6): 917–933. 

Han, Chao. 2015. “(Para)linguistic
correlates of perceived fluency in English-to-Chinese simultaneous
interpretation.” International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation
Studies 3(4): 32–37. 

Hoeppner, Sven. 2019. “A
note on replication analysis.” International Review of Law and
Economics 591: 98–102. 

Hubbard, Raymond and J. Scott Armstrong. 1994. “Replications
and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary.” International Journal of
Research in
Marketing 11(3): 233–248. 

Lee, Jieun. 2008. “Rating
scales for interpreting performance assessment.” The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer 2(2): 165–184. 

Mead, Peter. 2000. “Control
of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages.” The Interpreters’
Newsletter 101: 89–102.
Mead, Peter. 2005. “Methodological
issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency.” The Interpreters’
Newsletter 131: 39–63.
Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative
Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge. 

Park, Jung Hwan, Olesya Venger, Doo Yeon Park, and Leonard N. Reid. 2015. “Replication
in advertising research, 1980–2012: A longitudinal analysis of leading advertising
journals.” Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising 36(2): 115–135. 

Pöchhacker, Franz. 2011. “Replication
in research on quality in conference interpreting.” T&I
Review 11: 35–58.
Pöchhacker, Franz and Cornelia Zwischenberger. 2010. “Survey
on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and
self-perceptions.” aiic.org [URL] Last accessed 20 January 2022.
Porte, Graeme and Keith Richards. 2012. “Replication
in second language writing research.” Journal of Second Language
Writing 21 (3): 284–293. 

Porte, Graeme. 2013. “Who
needs replication?” Computer assisted language instruction Consortium
Journal 30 (1): 10–15. [URL]. 
Rennert, Sylvi. 2010. “The
impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality.” The Interpreters’
Newsletter 151: 101–115.
Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1984. “Applying
Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum.” American
Psychologist 39(5): 561–563. 

Saldanha, Gabriela and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research
methodologies in translation
studies. London: Routledge. 

Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. Cognitive
bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge. 

Song, Shuxian. 2020. Fluency
in simultaneous interpreting of trainee interpreters: The perspectives of cognitive, utterance and perceived
fluency. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [URL]
Stanley, David J. and Jeffrey R. Spence. 2014. “Expectations
for replications: Are yours realistic?” Perspectives on Psychological
Science 9(3): 305–318. 

Valentine, Jeffrey C. et al. 2011. “Replication in
prevention science.” Prevention
Science 12, 103 (2011). 

Van Aert, Bobbie C. M. and Marcel A. L. M. van Assen. 2018. “Examining
reproducibility in psychology: A hybrid method for combing a statistically significant original study and a
replication.” Behavior Research
Methods 501: 1515–1539. 

Wang, Binhua and Li Tao. 2015. “An
empirical study of pauses in Chinese-English simultaneous
interpreting.” Perspectives 23(1): 124–142. 

Wen, Hao and Yanping Dong. 2019. “How
does interpreting experience enhance working memory and short-term memory: A
meta-analysis.” Journal of Cognitive
Psychology 31(8): 769–784. 

Wright, Ben D. and John M. Linacre. 1994. “Reasonable
mean-square fit values.” Rasch Measurement
Transactions 8(3): 370. [URL]
Yang, Liu-yan. 2015. “An
exploratory study of fluency in English output of Chinese consecutive interpreting
learners.” Journal of Zhejiang International Studies
University 11, 60–68.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Han, Chao
2023.
Interrogating the predictive validity of aptitude testing for interpreting: a systematic methodological review.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:1
► pp. 7 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.