1887
image of Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Renewed interest in research methods used in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (CTIS) has led to increased reflection on the nature of research and experimental design, internal and external validity, and the type and nature of experimental tasks. Of particular concern is the extent to which valid generalization can be made from empirical studies of translation, interpreting, and their associated cognitive behaviors as objects of study. This article traces the definition and history of ecological validity in the extant literature on research methods and philosophy of science, emphasizing three considerations: the experimental setting, the stimuli under investigation, and the behavioral response of participants. Subsequently, we discuss potential misunderstandings or misapplications of appeals to ecological validity, including mundane realism, naturalistic tasks, and various data collection methods. A final section describes key points to consider for research in CTIS. Throughout, the argument considers tradeoffs among various categories of validity as well as the importance of aligning experimental design with research goals. This extensive engagement with a singular aspect of validity is provided to encourage deeper reflection and better communication around the topic of ecological validity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00061.mel
2022-07-08
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alves, Fabio
    2015 “Translation Process Research at the Interface: Paradigmatic, theoretical, and methodological issues in dialogue with cognitive science, expertise studies, and psycholinguistics.” InPsycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. Edited byA. Ferreira, and J. W. Schwieter, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.115.02alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.02alv [Google Scholar]
  2. Araújo, Duarte, Keith Davids, and Pedro Passos
    2007 “Ecological Validity, Representative Design, and Correspondence between Experimental Task Constraints and Behavioral Setting: Comment on Rogers, Kadar, and Costall (2005).” Ecological Psychology19 (1), 69–78. 10.1080/10407410709336951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10407410709336951 [Google Scholar]
  3. Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Robert G. Crowder
    1989 “The Bankruptcy of Everyday Memory.” American Psychologist44 (9), 1185–1193. 10.1037/0003‑066X.44.9.1185
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1185 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baraldi, Claudio, and Christopher D. Mellinger
    2016 “Observations.” InResearching Translation and Interpreting. Edited byC. V. Angelelli, and B. J. Baer, 257–268. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkowitz, Leonard, and Edward Donnerstein
    1982 “External Validity is More than Skin Deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments.” American Psychologist37 (3), 245–257. 10.1037/0003‑066X.37.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blanco-Elorrieta, Esti, and Liina Pylkkänen
    2018 “Ecological Validity in Bilingualism Research and the Bilingual Advantage.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences22 (12), 1117–1126. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolaños Medina, Alicia
    2016 “Translation Psychology within the Framework of Translator Studies: New research perspectives.” InFrom the Lab to the Classroom and Back Again: Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting Training. Edited byC. Martín de León, and V. González-Ruíz, 59–100. Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bracht, Glenn H., and Gene V. Glass
    1968 “The External Validity of Experiments.” American Educational Research Journal5 (4), 437–474. 10.3102/00028312005004437
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312005004437 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bronfenbrenner, Urie
    1977 “Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development.” American Psychologist32 (7), 513–531. 10.1037/0003‑066X.32.7.513
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunswik, Egon
    1943 “Organismic Achievement and Environmental Probability.” Psychological Review50 (3), 255–272. 10.1037/h0060889
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060889 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1949 “Remarks on Functionalism in Perception.” Journal of Personality18 (1), 56–65. 10.1111/j.1467‑6494.1949.tb01233.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01233.x [Google Scholar]
  12. 1955 “Representative Design and Probabilistic Theory in a Functional Psychology.” Psychological Review62 (3), 193–217. 10.1037/h0047470
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047470 [Google Scholar]
  13. Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout
    1981 “Designing Research for Application.” Journal of Consumer Research8, 197–207. 10.1086/208856
    https://doi.org/10.1086/208856 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1983 “Beyond External Validity.” Journal of Consumer Research10 (1), 112–114. 10.1086/208950
    https://doi.org/10.1086/208950 [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanely
    1963Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Cengage.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Carlsmith, J. Merrill, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, and Eliot Aronson
    1976Methods of Research in Social Psychology. Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chaytor, Naomi, and Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe
    2003 “The Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Tests: A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills.” Neuropsychology Review13 (4), 181–197. 10.1023/B:NERV.0000009483.91468.fb
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NERV.0000009483.91468.fb [Google Scholar]
  18. Chow, Siu L.
    1987 “Science, Ecological Validity, and Experimentation.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior17 (2), 181–194. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1987.tb00094.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1987.tb00094.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell
    1979Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dipboye, Robert L., and Michael F. Flanagan
    1980 “Reply to Willems and Howard.” American Psychologist35, 388–390. 10.1037/0003‑066X.35.4.388
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.4.388 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dobbins, Gregory H., Irving M. Lane, and Dirk D. Steiner
    1988 “A Note on the Role of Laboratory Methodologies in Applied Behavioural Research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” Journal of Organizational Behavior9 (3), 281–286. 10.1002/job.4030090308
    https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030090308 [Google Scholar]
  22. Downie, Jonathan
    2021 “Interpreting is Interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover comparative interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies16 (3), 325–346. 10.1075/tis.20006.dow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.dow [Google Scholar]
  23. Dunlosky, John, Sara Bottiroli, and Marissa Hartwig
    2009 “Sins Committed in the Name of Ecological Validity: A call for representative design in education science.” InHandbook of Metacognition in Education. Edited byD. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser, 430–440. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
    2020 “Translation Workplace-based Research.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology. Edited byM. O’Hagan, 354–369. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315311258‑21
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-21 [Google Scholar]
  25. Franzen, Michael D., and Karen L. Wilhelm
    1996 “Conceptual Foundations of Ecological Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment.” InEcological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing. Edited byR. J. Sbordone, and C. J. Long, 91–112. New York: St. Lucie Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. García, Adolfo M.
    2019The Neurocognition of Translation and Interpreting. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.147
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.147 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerber, Leah, Jim Hlavac, Irwyn Shepherd, Paul McIntosh, Alex Avella Archila, and Hyein Cho
    2021 “Stepping into the Future: Virtual reality training for community interpreters working in the area of family violence.” Journal of Specialised Translation36, 252–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibson, James J.
    1957 “Survival in a World of Probable Objects. Review of perception and the representative design of psychological experiment by E. Brunswik.” Contemporary Psychology2, 33–35. 10.1037/005466
    https://doi.org/10.1037/005466 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1986The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gile, Daniel
    2001 “Consecutive vs. Simultaneous: Which is more accurate?” Interpretation Studies1, 8–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2009 “Interpreting Studies: A critical view from within.” MonTI1, 135–155. 10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016 “Experimental Research.” InResearching Translation and Interpreting. Edited byC. V. Angelelli, and B. J. Baer, 220–228. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2018 “Research into Translation as a Specialism: An analysis and recommendations.” Journal of Specialised Translation30, 23–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Stephen Doherty
    2021 “The Effects of Mode on Interpreting Performance in a Simulated Police Interview.” Translation and Interpreting Studies. 10.1075/tis.19081.hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.19081.hal [Google Scholar]
  35. Hammond, Kenneth R.
    1998 “Ecological Validity: Then and Now.” Available atwww.brunswik.org/notes/essay2.html
  36. Hammond, Kenneth R., and Thomas R. Stewart
    2001 “Introduction.” InThe Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, Applications. Edited byK. R. Hammond, and T. R. Stewart, 3–11. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1057/9780230287211_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230287211_1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Daniel Couto Vale, and Stella Neumann
    2019 “Shorter than a Text, Longer than a Sentence: Source text length for ecologically valid translation experiments.” Target31 (1), 98–124. 10.1075/target.17122.hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17122.hei [Google Scholar]
  38. Highhouse, Scott
    2009 “Designing Experiments that Generalize.” Organizational Research Methods12 (3), 554–566. 10.1177/1094428107300396
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300396 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoc, Jean-Michel
    2001 “Towards Ecological Validity of Research in Cognitive Ergonomics.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science2 (3), 278–288. 10.1080/14639220110104970
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220110104970 [Google Scholar]
  40. Holleman, Gijs A., Ignace T. C. Hooge, Chantal Kemner, and Roy S. Hessels
    2020 “The “Real-World Approach” and its Problems: A critique of the term ecological validity.” Frontiers in Psychology11, 721. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721 [Google Scholar]
  41. House, Juliane
    2013 “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target25 (1), 46–60. 10.1075/target.25.1.05hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.05hou [Google Scholar]
  42. Jääskeläinen, Riitta
    2012 “Translation Psychology.” InHandbook of Translation Studies. Edited byY. Gambier, and L. van Doorslaer, 191–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.3.tra14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.3.tra14 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 “Verbal Reports.” InHandbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 213–231. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch12
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jakobsen, Arnt L.
    2020 “Translation Technology Research with Eye Tracking.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology. Edited byM. O’Hagan, 398–416. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315311258‑24
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-24 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kaiser, Henry F.
    1960 “Directional Statistical Hypotheses.” Psychological Review67 (3), 160–167. 10.1037/h0047595
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047595 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kihlstrom, John F.
    2021 “Ecological Validity and ‘Ecological Validity.’” Perspectives on Psychological Science16 (2), 466–471. 10.1177/1745691620966791
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966791 [Google Scholar]
  47. Korpal, Pawel
    2015 “Eye-tracking in Translation and Interpreting Studies: The growing popularity and methodological problems.” InAccessing Audiovisual Translation. Edited byL. Bogucki, and M. Deckert, 199–212. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kothgassner, Oswald D., and Anna Felnhofer
    2020 “Does Virtual Reality Help to Cut the Gordian Knot between Ecological Validity and Experimental Control?” Annals of the International Communication Association44 (3), 210–218. 10.1080/23808985.2020.1792790
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1792790 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kvavilashvili, Lia, and Judi A. Ellis
    2004 “Ecological Validity and the Real-life/Laboratory Controversy in Memory Research: A critical (and historical) review.” History and Philosophy of Psychology6 (1), 59–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ladouce, Simon, David I. Donaldson, Paul A. Dudchenko, and Magdalena Ietswaart
    2017 “Understanding Minds in Real-world Environments: Toward a mobile cognition approach.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience10, 694. 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00694
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00694 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lewkowicz, David J.
    2001 “The Concept of Ecological Validity: What are its limitations and is it bad to be invalid?” Infancy2 (4), 437–450. 10.1207/S15327078IN0204_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0204_03 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lucas, Jeffrey W.
    2003 “Theory-testing, Generalization, and the Problem of External Validity.” Sociological Theory21 (3), 236–253. 10.1111/1467‑9558.00187
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00187 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lund, Thorleif
    2021 “A Revision of the Campbellian Validity System.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research65 (3), 523–535. 10.1080/00313831.2020.1739126
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1739126 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lynch, John G., Jr.
    1999 “Theory and External Validity.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science27 (3), 367–376. 10.1177/0092070399273007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399273007 [Google Scholar]
  55. Malamatidou, Sofia
    2018Corpus Triangulation: Combining Data and Methods in Corpus-based Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Marín García, Álvaro
    2019 “The Opportunities of Epistemic Pluralism for Cognitive Translation Studies.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior2 (2), 165–185. 10.1075/tcb.00021.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00021.mar [Google Scholar]
  57. Matt, G. E., A. Brewer, and M. Sklar
    2010 “External validity.” InInternational Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Ed.Edited byP. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw, 521–527. Elsevier Science. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑044894‑7.01700‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01700-0 [Google Scholar]
  58. McGrath, Joseph E., and David Brinberg
    1983 “External Validity and the Research Process: A comment on the Calder/Lynch dialogue.” Journal of Consumer Research10 (1), 115–124. 10.1086/208951
    https://doi.org/10.1086/208951 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2015 “On the Applicability of Internet-mediated Research Methods to Investigate Translators’ Cognitive Behavior.” Translation & Interpreting7 (1), 59–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2020 “Positionality in Public Service Interpreting Research.” FITISPos International Journal7, 92–109. 10.37536/FITISPos‑IJ.2020.7.1.250
    https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2020.7.1.250 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2017Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2020 “Methodological Considerations for Survey Research: Validity, Reliability, and Quantitative Analysis.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies19, 172–190. 10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.549
    https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.549 [Google Scholar]
  63. Mellinger, Christopher D., Nicoletta Spinolo, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Sharon O’Brien
    . Forthcoming. “Designing Naturalistic Tasks.” InInnovative Data Collection Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies Edited by A. Rojo and R. Muñoz Martín. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mook, Douglas G.
    1983 “In Defense of External Invalidity.” American Psychologist38 (4), 379–387. 10.1037/0003‑066X.38.4.379
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379 [Google Scholar]
  65. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited byG. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 169–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.10mun [Google Scholar]
  66. 2016 “Of Minds and Men–Computers and Translators.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52 (2), 351–381. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0013 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2017 “Looking Toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 554–572. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch30
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch30 [Google Scholar]
  68. Neguţ, Alexandra, Silviu-Andrei Matu, Florin Alin Sava, and Daniel David
    2016 “Virtual Reality Measures in Neuropsychological Assessment: A meta-analytic review.” The Clinical Neuropsychologist30 (2), 165–184. 10.1080/13854046.2016.1144793
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1144793 [Google Scholar]
  69. O’Brien, Sharon
    2013 “The Borrowers: researching the cognitive aspects of translation.” Target25 (1), 5–17. 10.1075/target.25.1.02obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr [Google Scholar]
  70. Orne, Martin T.
    1962 “On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.” American Psychologist17 (11), 776–783. 10.1037/h0043424
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424 [Google Scholar]
  71. Parsons, Thomas D.
    2016Clinical Neuropsychology and Technology: What’s New and How We Can Use It. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑31075‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31075-6 [Google Scholar]
  72. Peecher, Mark E., and Ira Solomon
    2001 “Theory and Experimentation in Studies of Audit Judgments and Decisions: Avoiding common research traps.” International Journal of Auditing5 (3), 193–203. 10.1111/1099‑1123.00335
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00335 [Google Scholar]
  73. Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milošević
    2020 “Researching Workplaces.” InThe Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies. Edited byE. Angelone, M. Ehrensberger-Dow, and G. Massey, 37–62. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350024960.0007
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350024960.0007 [Google Scholar]
  74. Rojo López, Ana M., and Pawel Korpal
    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 Studies19, 191–217. 10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.533
    https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.533 [Google Scholar]
  75. Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien
    2013Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Schmuckler, Mark A.
    2001 “What is Ecological Validity? A dimensional analysis.” Infancy, 2 (4), 419–436. 10.1207/S15327078IN0204_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0204_02 [Google Scholar]
  77. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell
    2002Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Cengage.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Shreve, Gregory M., and Erik Angelone
    2010 “Translation and Cognition: Recent developments.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited byG. M. Shreve, and E. Angelone, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.01shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.01shr [Google Scholar]
  79. Spooner, Donna M., and Nancy A. Pachana
    2006 “Ecological Validity in Neuropsychological assessment: A case for greater consideration in research with neurologically intact populations.” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology21, 327–337. 10.1016/j.acn.2006.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  80. Steiner, Erich
    2021 “Translation, Equivalence, and Cognition.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byF. Alves, and A. L. Jakobsen, 344–359. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Stoffregen, Thomas A.
    1993 “‘Natural,’ ‘Real,’ and the Use of Non-physical Displays in Perception-Action Research.” ISEP Newsletter6, 4–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Stoffregen, Thomas A., Benoit Bardy, L. J. Smart, and Randy J. Pagulayan
    2003 “On the Nature and Evaluation of Fidelity in Virtual Environments.” InVirtual and Adaptive Environments: Applications, Implications, and Human Performance Issues. Edited byL. J. Hettinger, and M. W. Haas, 111–128. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.1201/9781410608888.ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781410608888.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  83. Sun, Sanjun, Tian Li, and Xiaoyan Zhou
    2020 “Effects of Thinking Aloud on Cognitive Effort in Translation.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies19, 132–151. 10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.556
    https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.556 [Google Scholar]
  84. Tiselius, Elisabet
    2021 “Informed Consent: An Overlooked Part of Ethical Research in Interpreting Studies.” InContext1 (1), 83–100. 10.54754/incontext.v1i1.4
    https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v1i1.4 [Google Scholar]
  85. Wachtel, Paul L.
    1980 “Investigation and its Discontents: Some Constraints on Progress in Psychological Research.” American Psychologist35 (5), 399–408. 10.1037/0003‑066X.35.5.399
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.5.399 [Google Scholar]
  86. Weng, Yu, and Binghan Zheng
    2020 “A Multi-Methodological Approach to Studying Time-Pressure in Written Translation: Manipulation and measurement.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies19, 218–236. 10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.548
    https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.548 [Google Scholar]
  87. Winer, Russell S.
    1999 “Experimentation in the 21st Century: The importance of external validity.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science27 (3), 349–358. 10.1177/0092070399273005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399273005 [Google Scholar]
  88. Xiao, Kairong, and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
    2020 “Cognitive Translation Studies: Models and methods at the cutting edge.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies19, 1–24. 10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.593
    https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.593 [Google Scholar]
  89. Ziegler, Klaus, and Sebastiano Gigliobianco
    2018 “Present? Remote? Remotely Present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting.” InInterpreting and Technology. Edited byC. Fantinuoli, 119–139. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00061.mel
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