1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Over the past decade, interpreter certification performance testing has gained momentum. Certification tests often involve high stakes, since they can play an important role in regulating access to professional practice and serve to provide a measure of professional competence for end users. The decision to award certification is based on inferences from candidates’ test scores about their knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as their interpreting performance in a given target domain. To justify the appropriateness of score-based inferences and actions, test developers need to provide evidence that the test is valid and reliable through a process of test validation. However, there is little evidence that test qualities are systematically evaluated in interpreter certification testing. In an attempt to address this problem, this paper proposes a theoretical argument-based validation framework for interpreter certification performance tests so as to guide testers in carrying out systematic validation research. Before presenting the framework, validity theory is reviewed, and an examination of the argument-based approach to validation is provided. A validity argument for interpreter tests is then proposed, with hypothesized validity evidence. Examples of evidence are drawn from relevant empirical work, where available. Gaps in the available evidence are highlighted and suggestions for research are made.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.2.04han
2016-10-21
2019-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Khanji, R. , El-Shiyab, S. & Hussein, R
    (2000) On the use of compensatory strategies in simultaneous interpretation. Meta45 (3), 548–557. doi: 10.7202/001873ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/001873ar [Google Scholar]
  2. ALTA Language Services
    (2007) Study of California’s court interpreter certification and registration testing. www.courts.ca.gov/documents/altafinalreport.pdf (accessed10 June 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education
    (1966) Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: Author.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anastasi, A
    (1986) Evolving concepts of test validation. Annual Review of Psychology37, 1–16. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.37.020186.000245
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.37.020186.000245 [Google Scholar]
  5. Angelelli, C
    (2004) Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007) Assessing medical interpreters. The Translator13 (1), 63–82. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799229
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2007.10799229 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In C. Angelelli & H.E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–47. doi: 10.1075/ata.xiv.03ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.03ang [Google Scholar]
  8. Arocha, I.S. & Joyce, L
    (2013) Patient safety, professionalization, and reimbursement as primary drivers for National Medical Interpreter Certification in the United States. Translation & Interpreting5 (1), 127–142. doi: ti.105201.2013.a07
    https://doi.org/ti.105201.2013.a07 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S
    (1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bachman, L.F
    (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2003) Constructing an assessment use argument and supporting claims about test taker-assessment task interactions in evidence-centered assessment design. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives1 (1), 63–65. doi: 10.1207/S15366359MEA0101_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15366359MEA0101_03 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly2 (1), 1–34. doi: 10.1207/s15434311laq0201_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0201_1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bachman, L.F. , Davidson, F. & Milanovic, M
    (1996) The use of test method characteristics in the content analysis and design of EFL proficiency tests. Language Testing13 (2), 125–150. doi: 10.1177/026553229601300201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300201 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bond, T.G. & Fox, C.M
    (2007) Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brennan, R.L
    (1998) Misconceptions at the intersection of measurement theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice17 (1), 5–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1745‑3992.1998.tb00615.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00615.x [Google Scholar]
  17. (2010) Generalizability theory and classical test theory. Applied Measurement in Education24 (1), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2011.532417
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.532417 [Google Scholar]
  18. Briggs, D.C
    (2004) Comment: Making an argument for design validity before interpretive validity. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives2 (3), 171–174. doi: 10.1207/s15366359mea0203_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0203_2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Campbell, S. & Hale, S
    (2003) Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 205–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cardinet, J. , Johnson, S. & Pini, G
    (2010) Applying generalizability theory using EduG. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters
    (2010) Job task analysis study and results. www.cchicertification.org/images/webinars/cchi%20jta%20report-public.pdf (accessed22 May 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chain News Service
    (2013) 全国翻译资格考试报考人数近5万 入围中大型考试. [CATTI becomes one of large and medium-scale tests in China, with nearly 50,0000 registered candidates]. www.chinanews.com/edu/2013/01-09/4474762.shtml?flashget_edu_jsp (accessed10 June 2015).
  23. Chapelle, C.A
    (2008) The TOEFL validity argument. In C. Chapelle , M. Enright , & J. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. London: Routledge, 319–352.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2012) Validity argument for language assessment: The framework is simple…Language Testing29 (1), 19–27. doi: 10.1177/0265532211417211
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211417211 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chapelle, C.A. , Enright, M.E. & Jamieson, J
    (2010) Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference?Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice29 (1), 3–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1745‑3992.2009.00165.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00165.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen, J
    (2009) Authenticity in accreditation tests for interpreters in China. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer3 (2), 257–273. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2009.10798791
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2009.10798791 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011) Language assessment: Its development and future – An interview with Lyle F. Bachman. Language Assessment Quarterly8 (3), 277–290. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2011.591464
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.591464 [Google Scholar]
  28. Christoffels, I.K. , De Groot, A.M.B. & Waldorp, L.J
    (2003) Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition6 (3), 201–211. doi: 10.1017/S1366728903001135
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001135 [Google Scholar]
  29. Clifford, A
    (2005) Putting the exam to the test: Psychometric validation and interpreter certification. Interpreting7 (1), 97–13. doi: 10.1075/intp.7.1.06cli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.06cli [Google Scholar]
  30. Cronbach, L.J. & Meehl, P.E
    (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin52 (4), 281–302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cronbach, L.J
    (1971) Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.)Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 443–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Crooks, T.J. , Kane, M.T. & Cohen, A.S
    (1996) Threats to the valid use of assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice3 (3), 265–286. doi: 10.1080/0969594960030302
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594960030302 [Google Scholar]
  33. Darò, V. , Lambert, S. & Fabbro, F
    (1996) Conscious monitoring of attention during simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting1 (1), 101–124. doi: 10.1075/intp.1.1.06dar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.06dar [Google Scholar]
  34. Dawrant, A. , & Jiang, H
    (2001) Conference interpreting in Mainland China. Communicate!www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?page_id=365 (accessed10 June 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. De Groot, A.M.B
    (2000) A complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–68. doi: 10.1075/btl.37.06gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.06gro [Google Scholar]
  36. Ebel, R
    (1961) Must all tests be valid?American Psychologist16 (10), 640–647. doi: 10.1037/h0045478
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045478 [Google Scholar]
  37. Eckes, T
    (2011) Introduction to many-facet Rasch measurement: Analyzing and evaluating rater-mediated assessments. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑04844‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04844-5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Embretson, S.E
    (1983) Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin93 (1), 179–197. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.93.1.179
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.1.179 [Google Scholar]
  39. Feuerle, L
    (2013) Testing interpreters: Developing, administering, and scoring court interpreter certification exams. Translation & Interpreting5 (1), 80–93. doi: 10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a04
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a04 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fulcher, G. , Davidson, F. & Kemp, J
    (2011) Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees. Language Testing28 (1), 5–29. doi: 10.1177/0265532209359514
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209359514 [Google Scholar]
  41. Giambruno, S
    (2013) EU member states country profiles: The current state of affairs in Europe. www.qualitas-project.eu/sites/qualitas-project.eu/files/Leaflet.pdf (accessed 10 June 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gile, D
    (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  43. Green, R
    (2013) Statistical analysis for language testers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137018298
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137018298 [Google Scholar]
  44. Guion, R
    (1977) Content validity: The source of my discontent. Applied Psychological measurement1 (1), 1–10. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100103 [Google Scholar]
  45. Guion, R.M
    (1980) On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology11 (3), 385–398. doi: 10.1037/0735‑7028.11.3.385
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.385 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gulliksen, H
    (1950) Intrinsic validity. American Psychologist5 (10), 51–517. doi: 10.1037/h0054604
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054604 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hale, S
    (2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hale, S. , Garcia, I. , Hlavac, J. , Kim, M. , Lai, M. , Turner, B. & Slatyer, H
    (2012) Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing and assessment. Sydney, Australia. www.naati.com.au/PDF/INT/INTFinalReport.pdf (accessed22 May 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Han, C
    (2015) Investigating rater severity/leniency in interpreter performance testing: A multifaceted Rasch measurement approach. Interpreting17 (2), 255–283. doi: 10.1075/intp.17.2.05han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.05han [Google Scholar]
  50. Hlavac, J
    (2013) A cross-national overview of translator and interpreter certification procedures. Translation & Interpreting5, 32–65. doi: 10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a02
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a02 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jacobs, E.A. , Lauderdale, D.S. , Meltzer, D. , Shorey, J.M. , Levinson, W. & Thisted, R.A
    (2001) Impact of interpreter services on delivery of health care to limited-English-proficient patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine16 (7), 468–474. doi: 10.1046/j.1525‑1497.2001.016007468.x
    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007468.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Kane, M.T
    (1990) An argument-based approach to validation. Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing Program.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (1992) An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin112 (3), 527–535. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.3.527
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527 [Google Scholar]
  54. (1994).Validating interpretive arguments for licensure and certification examinations. Evaluation and the Health Professions17 (2), 133–159. doi: 10.1177/016327879401700202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016327879401700202 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2001) Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement38 (4), 319–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1745‑3984.2001.tb01130.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x [Google Scholar]
  56. (2004) Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives2 (3), 135–170. doi: 10.1207/s15366359mea0203_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0203_1 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2006) Validation. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger, 17–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kane, M.T. , Crooks, T. & Cohen, A
    (1999) Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice18 (2), 5–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1745‑3992.1999.tb00010.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1999.tb00010.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Kunnan, A.J
    (2010) Test fairness and Toulmin’s argument structure. Language Testing27 (2), 183–189. doi: 10.1177/0265532209349468
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349468 [Google Scholar]
  60. Linn, R.L
    (1989) Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lissitz, R.W. & Samuelsen, K
    (2007) A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher36 (8), 437–448. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07311286
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07311286 [Google Scholar]
  62. 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: Peter Lang, 163–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2015a) Assessment. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. New York: Routledge, 20–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2015b) Certification. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. New York: Routledge, 45–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Loevinger, J
    (1957) Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports3 (3), 635–694. doi: 10.2466/PR0.3.7.635‑694
    https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.3.7.635-694 [Google Scholar]
  66. MacCorquodale, K. & Meehl, P.E
    (1948) On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review55, 97–105. doi: 10.1037/h0056029
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056029 [Google Scholar]
  67. McNamara, T.F
    (1996) Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Mehrens, W.A
    (1992) Using performance assessment for accountability purposes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice11 (1), 3–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1745‑3992.1992.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Messick, S
    (1975) The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist30 (10), 955–966. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.30.10.955
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.955 [Google Scholar]
  70. (1981) Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher10 (9), 9–20. doi: 10.3102/0013189X010009009
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X010009009 [Google Scholar]
  71. (1988) The once and future issues of validity. Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 33–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1989) Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan, 13–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (1994) The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher23 (2), 13–23. doi: 10.3102/0013189X023002013
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023002013 [Google Scholar]
  74. Meuleman, C. & Van Besien, F
    (2009) Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting11 (1), 20–34. doi: 10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu [Google Scholar]
  75. Mislevy, R.J
    (2007) Validity by design. Educational Researcher36 (8), 463–469. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07311660
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07311660 [Google Scholar]
  76. Mislevy, R.J. , Almond, R.G. & Lukas, J
    (2004) A brief introduction to evidence-centered design (CSE Technical Report 632). www.cresst.org/reports/r632.pdf (accessed10 June 2015). doi: 10.1037/e646212011‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1037/e646212011-001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Mislevy, R.J. , Steinberg, L.S. & Almond, R.G
    (2003) On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives1 (1), 3–66. doi: 10.1207/S15366359MEA0101_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15366359MEA0101_02 [Google Scholar]
  78. Moser, B
    (1978) Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language, interpretation and communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, 353–368. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_31
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_31 [Google Scholar]
  79. Office of China Accreditation Tests for Translators and Interpreters
    (2005) 二级口译英语同声传译类考试大纲. 外文出版社 [Syllabus of CATTI Level-two Simultaneous Interpreting Test]. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Pöllabauer, S
    (2004) Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting6 (2), 143–180. doi: 10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol [Google Scholar]
  81. PSI Services LLC
    (2010) Development and validation of oral and written examinations for medical interpreter certification: Technical report. Burbank, California, USA. www.certifiedmedicalinterpreters.org//sites/default/files/oral-and-written-medical-interpreter-technical-report-final.pdf (accessed22 May 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  82. (2013) Development and validation of oral examinations for Medical Interpreter Certification: Mandarin, Russian, Cantonese, Korean, and Vietnamese forms. www.certifiedmedicalinterpreters.org/sites/default/files/tech-report-development-validation-language-forms.pdf (accessed22 May 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Ra, S. & Napier, J
    (2013) Community interpreting: Asian language interpreters’ perspectives. Translation & Interpreting5 (2), 45–61. doi: ti.105202.2013.a04
    https://doi.org/ti.105202.2013.a04 [Google Scholar]
  84. Roat, C.E
    (2006) Certification of health care interpreters in the United States: A primer, a status report and considerations for national certification. Los Angeles, CA. www.calendow.org/uploadedFiles/certification_of_health_care_interpretors.pdf (accessed 22 May 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Russell, D. & Malcolm, K
    (2009) Assessing ASL–English interpreters: The Canadian model of national certification. In C.V. Angelelli & H.E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 331–376. doi: 10.1075/ata.xiv.15rus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.15rus [Google Scholar]
  86. Sawyer, D.B
    (2004) Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.47 [Google Scholar]
  87. Schumacker, R. & Lomax, R.G
    (2010) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Setton, R
    (1999) Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive and Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  89. (2009) Introduction: Interpreting China, interpreting Chinese. Interpreting11 (2), 109–117. doi: 10.1075/intp.11.2.01set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.01set [Google Scholar]
  90. Shavelson, R.J. , Baxter, G.P. & Gao, X
    (1993) Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement30 (3), 215–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1745‑3984.1993.tb00424.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00424.x [Google Scholar]
  91. Shepard, L.A
    (1993) Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education19, 405–450.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Skinner, B.F
    (1945) The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review52 (5), 270–277. doi: 10.1037/h0062535
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062535 [Google Scholar]
  93. Slatyer, H. , Elder, C. , Hargreaves, M. & Luo, K
    (2008) An investigation into rater reliability, rater behavior and comparability of test tasks. Sydney: Access Macquarie.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Thurstone, L.L
    (1932) The reliability and validity of tests. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Toulmin, S.E
    (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. (2003) The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  97. Turner, B. , Lai, M. & Huang, N
    (2010) Error deduction and descriptors – a comparison of two methods of translation test assessment. Translation & Interpreting2 (1), 11–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Vermeiren, H. , Gucht, J.V. & De Bontridder, L
    (2009) Standards as critical success factors in assessments: Certifying social interpreters in Flanders, Belgium. In C.V. Angelelli & H.E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 291–330. doi: 10.1075/ata.xiv.14ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.14ver [Google Scholar]
  99. Xie, Q. & Andrews, S
    (2012) Do test design and uses influence test preparation? Testing a model of washback with Structural Equation Modeling. Language Testing30 (1), 49–70. doi: 10.1177/0265532212442634
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212442634 [Google Scholar]
  100. Yu, D.R
    (2005) T&I labor market in China. Sydney, Australia. www.ling.mq.edu.au/translation/lmtip_china.htm (accessed22 May 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.2.04han
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