Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment

This paper examines two assessment methodologies used for large-scale translating and interpreting accreditation testing: error analysis / deduction and descriptors. A report by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University) (Turner and Ozolins, 2007) showed that the UK Institute of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Barry Turner, Miranda Lai, Neng Huang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Western Sydney University 2010-07-01
Series:Translation and Interpreting : the International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/42/66
id doaj-dedb9fc945e14ece8bff6db43f0f0103
record_format Article
spelling doaj-dedb9fc945e14ece8bff6db43f0f01032020-11-25T03:02:12ZengWestern Sydney UniversityTranslation and Interpreting : the International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research1836-93242010-07-0121Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessmentBarry TurnerMiranda LaiNeng HuangThis paper examines two assessment methodologies used for large-scale translating and interpreting accreditation testing: error analysis / deduction and descriptors. A report by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University) (Turner and Ozolins, 2007) showed that the UK Institute of Linguists and the American Translators Association are among international testing bodies that have moved or are moving towards using descriptors or combining negative marking and descriptors. This paper explores whether the Australian National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) might be able to move to a descriptor approach to assessment without risk to the reliability or accountability of its public examination system. The NAATI assessment system is used as a benchmark to compare it with assessment outcomes using the descriptor-based translation component of the U.K. Institute of Linguists Diploma of Public Service Interpreting (DPSI). The most significant finding of the research is that there was a high correlation between assessment outcomes in the two assessment systems, indicating that a descriptor system might be as reliable and accountable as the current NAATI system.http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/42/66translation; translation examination; negative deduction; error analysis; descriptor; marking; accreditation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Barry Turner
Miranda Lai
Neng Huang
spellingShingle Barry Turner
Miranda Lai
Neng Huang
Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
Translation and Interpreting : the International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research
translation; translation examination; negative deduction; error analysis; descriptor; marking; accreditation
author_facet Barry Turner
Miranda Lai
Neng Huang
author_sort Barry Turner
title Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
title_short Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
title_full Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
title_fullStr Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
title_full_unstemmed Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
title_sort error deduction and descriptors – a comparison of two methods of translation test assessment
publisher Western Sydney University
series Translation and Interpreting : the International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research
issn 1836-9324
publishDate 2010-07-01
description This paper examines two assessment methodologies used for large-scale translating and interpreting accreditation testing: error analysis / deduction and descriptors. A report by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University) (Turner and Ozolins, 2007) showed that the UK Institute of Linguists and the American Translators Association are among international testing bodies that have moved or are moving towards using descriptors or combining negative marking and descriptors. This paper explores whether the Australian National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) might be able to move to a descriptor approach to assessment without risk to the reliability or accountability of its public examination system. The NAATI assessment system is used as a benchmark to compare it with assessment outcomes using the descriptor-based translation component of the U.K. Institute of Linguists Diploma of Public Service Interpreting (DPSI). The most significant finding of the research is that there was a high correlation between assessment outcomes in the two assessment systems, indicating that a descriptor system might be as reliable and accountable as the current NAATI system.
topic translation; translation examination; negative deduction; error analysis; descriptor; marking; accreditation
url http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/42/66
work_keys_str_mv AT barryturner errordeductionanddescriptorsacomparisonoftwomethodsoftranslationtestassessment
AT mirandalai errordeductionanddescriptorsacomparisonoftwomethodsoftranslationtestassessment
AT nenghuang errordeductionanddescriptorsacomparisonoftwomethodsoftranslationtestassessment
_version_ 1724690900739686400