Volume 66, Issue 4-5
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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 interpretation11 (1): 2–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Akbari, A.
    2018 “Translation Quality Research: A data-driven collection of peer-reviewed journal articles during 2000–2017”. Babel, 64 (4): 548–578. 10.1075/babel.00051.akb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00051.akb [Google Scholar]
  3. Angelelli, C.
    2013 “Forword”. InAssessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari ; and Roelof van Deemter , 9–11. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bachman, L. ; and Palmer, A.
    1996Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell, S. ; and Hale, S.
    2003 “Translation and Interpreting Assessment in the Context of Educational Measurement”. InTranslation Today: Trends and Perspectives, ed. by G. Anderman ; and M. Rogers . 205–224. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596179‑017
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596179-017 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carroll, J. B.
    1966 “An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations”. Mechanical Translation9: 55–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fulcher, G.
    2003Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 methodology13–117. doi:  10.1186/1471‑2288‑13‑117
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kim, Y.
    2008 “Assessment System in Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation”. Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education6 (2): 23–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kim, J.
    2016 “Quality Assessment of Consecutive Interpretation: An Example from Korean-Chinese Interpretation”. Interpreting and Translation Studies20 (1): 25–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Krajcsco, Z.
    2018 “Translators’ competence profiles versus market demand”. Babel64 (5): 692–709. 10.1075/babel.00059.kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00059.kra [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 Review1 (1): 1–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu, M.
    2013 “Design and Analysis of Taiwan’s Interpretation Certification Examination”. InAssessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari ; and Roelof van Deemter : 15–33. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Messick, S.
    1989 “Validity”. InEducational Measurement (3rd ed.), ed. by R. L. Linn . 13–104. American Council on Education, Washington (WA): Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Park, H.
    2015 “Quality Assessment in Korean Military Interpreting: Focusing on the Assessment of Interpreting Officers”. Interpreting and Translation Studies19 (2): 160–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Pyoun, H.
    2004 “A case study on the evaluation of AB interpretation according to different teacher profiles”. Conference Interpretation and Translation6 (2): 207–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Salmi, L. ; and Penttila, A.
    2013 “The System of Authorizing Translators in Finland”. InAssessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari ; and Roelof van Deemter , 15–33. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Srivastava, A. ; and Thomson, B.
    2009 “Framework Analysis: A Qualitative Methodology for Applied Research Note Policy Research”. JOAAG4 (2): 72–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Wu, F.
    2013 “How Do We Assess Students in the Interpreting Examinations?” InAssessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Dina Tsagari ; and Roelof van Deemter , 15–33. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error