Putting the exam to the test: Psychometric validation and interpreter certification

Interpreting

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 97-131

  Clifford, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Certification; Construct validity; Psychometrics; Quality assessment; Testing

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248714100     PISSN: 13846647     EISSN: 1569982X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/intp.7.1.06cli     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Arjona, E. (1985). The Court Interpreters Certification Test design. In L. Elias-Olivares, E. A. Leone, R. Cisneros & J. R. Gutierrez (Eds.), Spanish language use and public life in the United States. Berlin: Mouton, 181-200.
2. AIIC. (2004). Association internationale des interpretes de conference. http://www.aiic.net (accessed 6 September 2004).
3. ATIO. (2004). Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario. http://www.atio.on.ca (accessed 6 September 2004).
4. Benveniste, E. (1966). Problemes de linguistiquegenerale, Tome I. Paris: Gallimard.
5. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the mul-titrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56 (2), 81-105.
6. Card, C. (February 17, 2003). Personal communication.
7. Carroll, J. B. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical Translation 9, 55-66.
8. Clifford, A. F. (2003). A preliminary investigation into discursive models of interpreting as a means of enhancing construct validity in interpreter certification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.
9. Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E. & Phillips, S. M. (1996). Psychological testing and assessment (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
10. Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essentials of educational measurement (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Fillmore, C. (1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
13. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Hewitt, W. E. & Stansfield, C. W. (2002). A report on the predictive validity of the Written Examination for the Oral Examination. Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
15. Hewitt, W. E., Romberger, W. & Ostrom, C. W. Jr. (2003). Rating reliability of the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Oral Examination. Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
16. House, J. (1977). A model for translation quality assessment. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
17. House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
18. Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In M. Snell Hornby, F. Pochhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189-198.
19. McGhan, W. F., Stimmel, G. L., Gilman, T. M. & Segal, J. L. (1982). Pharmacists as drug pre-scribers: Validation of certification exams and evaluation instruments. Evaluation & the Health Professions 5 (2), 115-129.
20. OTTIAQ. (2004). Bienvenue a l’OTTIAQ. Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et inter-pretes agrees du Quebec. http://www.otiaq.org (accessed 6 September 2004).
21. Paradis, M. (1994). Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 10 (3), 319-335.
22. Paradis, M. (2000). Prerequisites to a study of neurolinguistic processes involved in simultaneous interpreting: A synopsis. In B. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-24.
23. Pochhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 410-425.
24. Roberts, R. P. (1995). As assessment tool for community interpreting. In P. W. Krawutschke (Ed.), Connections: Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc., 135-145.
25. Roberts, R. P. (2000). Interpreter assessment tools for different settings. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 103-120.
26. Sawyer, D. B. (2000). Towards meaningful, appropriate, and useful assessment: How the false dichotomy between theory and practice undermines interpreter education. ATA Chronicle 29 (2), 32-40.
27. Sawyer, D. B. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
28. Schjoldager, A. (1995). Assessment of simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187-195.
29. Schweda-Nicholson, N. (1986). Language planning and policy development for court interpretation services in the United States. Language Problems & Language Planning 10 (2), 140-157.
30. Schweda-Nicholson, N.Seltzer v. Foley, 502 F. Supp. 600 (SDNY 1980).
31. Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
32. Shlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research.msterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 123-131.
33. Strong, M. & Rudser, S. F. (1985) An assessment instrument for sign language interpreters. Sign Language Studies 49, 343-361.
34. Thompson, B. & Levitov, J. E. (1985). Using microcomputers to score and evaluate items. Collegiate Microcomputer 3 (2), 163-168.
35. Violato, C., Salami, L. & Muiznieks, S. (2002). Certification examinations for massage therapists: A psychometric analysis. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 25 (2), 111-115.
36. Williams, M. (2001a). The application of argumentation theory to translation quality assessment. Meta 46 (2), 326-344.
37. Williams, M. (2001b). An argumentation-centred approach to translation quality assessment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Ottawa.