Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper presents methodological challenges in a study focusing on the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance. In recent years, the practice of simultaneous interpreting has undergone a robust development with the quick uptake of remote interpreting technologies due to the global pandemic. In order to investigate remote interpreting, we created the Inside the Virtual Booth project encompassing a survey and an experimental study. We report on selected results of the survey that directly inform the experimental study design. We focus on challenges related to the compromise between experimental control and ecological validity, creation of materials and selection of dependent variables, including eyetracking measures that cannot be directly applied from reading studies to a study involving multimodal content typical for remote interpreting assignments. The paper may serve as a source of methodological guidance to scholars entering the field of experimental translation and interpreting studies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Angelelli, Claudia, and Brian James Baer
    2016Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2006 ‘Strategies of Simultaneous Interpreting and Directionality.’ Interpreting8 (2): 149–174. 10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradley, James V.
    1958 ‘Complete Counterbalancing of Immediate Sequential Effects in a Latin Square Design.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association53 (282): 525–528. 10.1080/01621459.1958.10501456
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501456 [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti and Catherine Slater
    2020 ‘‘It’s like being in bubbles’: affordances and challenges of virtual learning environments for collaborative learning in interpreter education’. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer14(5): 1–20. 10.1080/1750399X.2020.1800362
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2020.1800362 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chmiel, Agnieszka
    2008 ‘Boothmates Forever?— On Teamwork in a Simultaneous Interpreting Booth.’ Across Languages and Cultures9 (2): 261–276. 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.6 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2021a ‘Effects of Simultaneous Interpreting Experience and Training on Anticipation, as Measured by Word-Translation Latencies.’ Interpreting23 (1): 18–44. 10.1075/intp.00048.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00048.chm [Google Scholar]
  7. 2021b ‘Eye-Tracking Studies in Conference Interpreting.’ InThe Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited byMichaela Albl-Mikasa and Elisabet Tiselius, 1st ed., 457–70. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429297878‑40
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429297878-40 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski, and Agnieszka Lijewska
    2020 ‘Multimodal Processing in Simultaneous Interpreting with Text: Interpreters Focus More on the Visual than the Auditory Modality.’ Target32(1): 37–58. 10.1075/target.18157.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18157.chm [Google Scholar]
  9. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Agnieszka Lijewska
    2019 ‘Syntactic Processing in Sight Translation by Professional and Trainee Interpreters.’ Target31 (3): 378–397. 10.1075/target.18091.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18091.chm [Google Scholar]
  10. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Iwona Mazur
    2013 ‘Eye Tracking Sight Translation Performed by Trainee Interpreters.’ InTracks and Treks in Translation Studies, edited byCatherine Way, Sonia Vandepitte, Reine Meylaerts, and Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk, 189–205. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.108.10chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.10chm [Google Scholar]
  11. Collard, Camille and Marta Buján Navarro
    2021ESIT research project on remote simultaneous interpreting: first overview of results. Accessed12 September 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350957508_First_overview_of_results
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cuetos, Fernando, María Glez-Nosti, Analía Barbón, and Marc Brysbaert
    2011 ‘SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish Word Frequencies Based on Film Subtitles.’ Psicológica321: 133–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Defrancq, Bart, and Claudio Fantinuoli
    2021 ‘Automatic Speech Recognition in the Booth: Assessment of System Performance, Interpreters’ Performances and Interactions in the Context of Numbers.’ Target33 (1): 73–102. 10.1075/target.19166.def
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19166.def [Google Scholar]
  14. Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Presentación Padilla, and María Teresa Bajo
    2015 ‘The Role of Advance Preparation in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Interpreting17 (1): 1–25. 10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia [Google Scholar]
  15. Doherty, Stephen, and Jan-Louis Kruger
    2018 ‘The Development of Eye Tracking in Empirical Research on Subtitling and Captioning.’ InSeeing into Screens: Eye Tracking and the Moving Image, edited byTessa Dwyer, Claire Perkins, Sean Redmond, and Jodi Sita, 46–64. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781501329012.0009
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501329012.0009 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen
    2009 ‘Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation.’ Meta54 (3): 588–604. 10.7202/038317ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/038317ar [Google Scholar]
  17. Duchowski, Andrew T., Krzysztof Krejtz, Izabela Krejtz, Cezary Biele, Anna Niedzielska, Peter Kiefer, Martin Raubal, and Ioannis Giannopoulos
    2018 ‘The Index of Pupillary Activity: Measuring Cognitive Load Vis-à-Vis Task Difficulty with Pupil Oscillation.’ InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. Montreal: ACM. 10.1145/3173574.3173856
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173856 [Google Scholar]
  18. Environmental Implementation Review
    Environmental Implementation Review. Accessed12 September 2022. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/environmental-implementation-review_en
  19. Fantinuoli, Claudio
    2019 ‘The Technological Turn in Interpreting: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.’ InProceedings of the Conference Übersetzen und Dolmetschen 4.0.—Neue Wege im Digitalen Zeitalter, edited byWolfram Baur and Felix Mayer, 334–354. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fantinuoli, Claudio, Giulia Marchesini, David Landan, and Lukas Horak
    2022 ’KUDO Interpreter Assist: Automated Real-Time Support for Remote Interpretation’. InProceedings of the Translating and the Computer 43 Conference, 68–77. Geneva: Editions Tradulex.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gieshoff, Anne Catherine
    2018The Impact of Audio-Visual Speech Input on Work-Load in Simultaneous Interpreting. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Mainz.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  23. GT Booth
    GT Booth. Accessed12 September 2022. https://www.gtmeeting.com/solutions/gtbooth
  24. Gunning, Robert
    1969 ‘The Fog Index after Twenty Years.’ Journal of Business Communication, 6 (2): 3–13. 10.1177/002194366900600202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002194366900600202 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Stephen Doherty
    2022 ‘The Effects of Mode on Interpreting Performance in a Simulated Police Interview.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies17 (2): 264–286. 10.1075/tis.19081.hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.19081.hal [Google Scholar]
  26. Huang, Chih-Chieh
    2011Tracking Eye Movements in Sight Translation – the Comprehension Process in Interpreting. Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Halverson, Sandra L., and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
    2021 ‘The Times, They Are a-Changin’: Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition.’ InMultilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition, edited byRicardo Muñoz Martín and Sandra L. Alverson, 1–17. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hart, Sandra G. and Lowell E. Staveland
    1988 ‘Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research’. InHuman Mental Workload, edited byPeter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, North-Holland, 139–183. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62386‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoberg, Felix
    2022Informationsintegration in Mehrsprachigen Textchats. Der Skype Translator im Sprachenpaar Katalanisch-Deutsch. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian Jensen
    2008 ‘Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.’ InLooking at Eyes – Eye Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited bySusanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    2017 ‘Translation Process Research.’ InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byAline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 19–49. Hoboken: Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones, Roderick
    2002Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Ilmari Ivaska, and Adriano Ferraresi
    2021 ‘‘Lost’ in Interpreting and ‘Found’ in Translation: Using an Intermodal, Multidirectional Parallel Corpus to Investigate the Rendition of Numbers.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice29 (4): 469–88. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1860097
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1860097 [Google Scholar]
  34. Korpal, Paweł
    2017Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Korpal, Paweł, and Katarzyna Stachowiak-Szymczak
    2018 ‘The Whole Picture: Processing of Numbers and Their Context in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics54 (3): 335–54. 10.1515/psicl‑2018‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0013 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2019 ‘Combined Problem Triggers in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 1–18. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1628285
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1628285 [Google Scholar]
  37. Laugwitz, Bettina, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp
    2008 ‘Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire’. InHCI and Usability for Education and Work, edited byAndreas Holzinger, 52981:63–76. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑89350‑9_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Limesurvey GmbH
    Limesurvey GmbH (2003) / LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool /LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. www.limesurvey.org. Accessed28 September 2022.
  39. Lin, Yumeng, Qianxi Lv, and Junying Liang
    2018 ‘Predicting Fluency With Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Frontiers in Psychology91: 1543. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01543
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01543 [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll
    2004 ‘Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Interpreting6 (1): 19–42. 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, Yanmei, Binghan Zheng, and Hao Zhou
    2019 “Measuring the Difficulty of Text Translation: The Combination of Text-Focused and Translator-Oriented Approaches”. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies31 (1): 125–149. 10.1075/target.18036.zhe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18036.zhe [Google Scholar]
  42. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2017Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2018 ‘Interpreter Traits and the Relationship with Technology and Visibility.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies. 13 (3), 366–392. 10.1075/tis.00021.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel [Google Scholar]
  44. 2022 ‘Considerations of Ecological Validity in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies.’ Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1–26. 10.1075/tcb.00061.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00061.mel [Google Scholar]
  45. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2019 ‘Computer-Assisted Interpreting Technologies and Interpreter Cognition: A Product and Process-Oriented Perspective’. Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció, 171, 33–44. < 10.5565/rev/tradumatica.228
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.228 [Google Scholar]
  46. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    2005 ‘The crucial role of presence’. Bulletin VALS-ASLA811: 73–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mouzourakis, Panayotis
    2006 ‘Remote Interpreting: A Technical Perspective on Recent Experiments’. Interpreting8 (1): 45–66. 10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou [Google Scholar]
  48. Naeeri, Salem, Saptarshi Mandal, and Ziho Kang
    2019 ‘Analyzing Pilots’ Fatigue for Prolonged Flight Missions: Multimodal Analysis Approach Using Vigilance Test and Eye Tracking.’ InProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting63 (1): 111–15. 10.1177/1071181319631092
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631092 [Google Scholar]
  49. NASA-TLX
    NASA-TLX 1986NASA-TLX Paper and Pencil Package. https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/downloads/TLX_pappen_manual.pdf. Accessed28 September 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq
    2016 ‘The Effect of Informational Load on Disfluencies in Interpreting: A Corpus-Based Regression Analysis.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies11 (2): 202–24. 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  51. Prandi, Bianca
    2022Computer-Assisted Simultaneous Interpreting. A Cognitive-Experimental Study on Terminology. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ratchford, Mark and Michelle Barnhart
    2012 ‘Development and Validation of the Technology Adoption Propensity (TAP) Index.’ Journal of Business Research65 (8): 1209–1215. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rojo López, Ana María, Paula Cifuentes Férez and Laura Espín López
    2021a ‘The influence of time pressure on translation trainees’ performance: Testing the relationship between self-esteem, salivary cortisol and subjective stress response’. PLoS ONE16 (9): e0257727. 10.1371/journal.pone.0257727
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257727 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rojo López, Ana María, Ana Isabel Foulquié-Rubio, Laura Espín López and Francisco Martínez Sánchez
    2021b ‘Analysis of speech rhythm and heart rate as indicators of stress on student interpreters’. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice29 (4): 591–607. 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1900305
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1900305 [Google Scholar]
  55. Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
    2010 ‘Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting’. Interpreting12 (2): 214–247. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  56. Rozkrut, Paulina
    2022Factors Influencing the Processing of Numbers in Polish-English and English-Polish Simultaneous Interpreting. Master’s thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Saeed, Muhammad Ahmed, Eloy Rodríguez González, Tomasz Korybski, Elena Davitti, and Sabine Braun
    2022 ‘Connected yet Distant: An Experimental Study into the Visual Needs of the Interpreter in Remote Simultaneous Interpreting’. InHuman-Computer Interaction. User Experience and Behavior, edited byMasaaki Kurosu, 214–232. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑05412‑9_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05412-9_16 [Google Scholar]
  58. Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien
    2014Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760100
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760100 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schrepp, Martin
    2019User Experience Questionnaire Handbook. https://www.ueq-online.org/Material/Handbook.pdf. Accessed28 September 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2012 ‘Multimodal Input in Simultaneous Interpreting. An Eye-Tracking Experiment.’ InProceedings of the 1st International Conference TRANSLATA, Translation & Interpreting Research: Yesterday – Today – Tomorrow. Innsbruck, Austria, edited byLew N. Zybatov, Alena Petrova, and Michael Ustaszewski, 341–47. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2017 ‘Interpreting at the European Institutions: Faster, Higher, Stronger.’ CLINA3 (2): 73–90. 10.14201/clina2017327390
    https://doi.org/10.14201/clina2017327390 [Google Scholar]
  62. Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, Rhona Amos, and Sophie Hengl
    2019 ‘Expectations vs. Experience: Attitudes towards Video Remote Conference Interpreting’. Interpreting, 21 (2): 270–304. 10.1075/intp.00030.see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00030.see [Google Scholar]
  63. Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, and Alexis Hervais-Adelman
    2020 ‘When the Ear Leads the Eye – the Use of Text during Simultaneous Interpretation.’ Language, Cognition and Neuroscience35 (10): 1480–1494. 10.1080/23273798.2020.1799045
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1799045 [Google Scholar]
  64. Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
    2011 ‘Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.’ International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2): 228–42. 10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  65. Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant
    2016Conference Interpreting – A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.121
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.121 [Google Scholar]
  66. Seubert, Sabine
    2019Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Shao, Zhangminzi, and Mingjiong Chai
    2020 ‘The Effect of Cognitive Load on Simultaneous Interpreting Performance: An Empirical Study at the Local Level.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice29 (5): 1–17. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1770816
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1770816 [Google Scholar]
  68. Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
    2010 ‘Cognitive Effort, Syntactic Disruption, and Visual Interference in a Sight Translation Task.’ InTranslation and Cognition, edited byGregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 63–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.05shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.05shr [Google Scholar]
  69. Spielberger, Charles, Richard Gorsuch, Robert E. Lushene, Peter R. Vagg and Gerard A. Jacobs
    1983Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Stachowiak, Katarzyna
    2016Eye Movements and Gestures as Correlates of Language Processing in Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting. Department of Translation Studies. Doctoral dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Su, Wenchao, and Defeng Li
    2019 ‘Identifying Translation Problems in English-Chinese Sight Translation.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies14 (1): 110–34. 10.1075/tis.00033.su
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00033.su [Google Scholar]
  72. Sun, Sanjun and Gregory M. Shreve
    2014 ‘Measuring translation difficulty: an empirical study’. Target26 (1): 98–127. 10.1075/target.26.1.04sun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.1.04sun [Google Scholar]
  73. Szarkowska, Agnieszka, and Olivia Gerber-Morón
    2019 ‘Two or Three Lines: A Mixed-Methods Study on Subtitle Processing and Preferences.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice27 (1): 144–64. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1520267
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1520267 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tiselius, Elisabet
    2009 ‘Revisiting Carroll’s Scales.’ InTesting and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies, edited byClaudia V. Angelelli and Holly E. Jacobson, XIV1: 95–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/ata.xiv.07tis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.07tis [Google Scholar]
  75. Tiselius, Elisabet, and Kayle Sneed
    2020 ‘Gaze and Eye Movement in Dialogue Interpreting: An Eye-Tracking Study.’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition23 (4): 780–87. 10.1017/S1366728920000309
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000309 [Google Scholar]
  76. Van Heuven, Walter J. B., Pawel Mandera, Emmanuel Keuleers, and Marc Brysbaert
    2014 ‘SUBTLEX-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English.’ The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology67 (6): 1176–90. 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521 [Google Scholar]
  77. Yang, Chengsong, Yimeng Wang and Na Fan
    2022 “Are parallel translation tasks parallel in difficulty? an eye-tracking study”. Perspectives30 (4): 711–726. 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1933109
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1933109 [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