|
Interpretation and Translation in the Legal Field I
Thursday 3:30 - 5:30
Court interpretation test: What we have learned and where we are going
The design and conduct of court interpreter proficiency testing forcertification purposes (de facto professional licensure) began in
the United States with the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examinationin 1979/80. The state of California began a certification testing
program about the same time. Since then California's program has undergone
several changes and New Jersey and Washington have establised well-documented
and respected testing programs. Most recently, beginning in 1995, the
National Center for Stat Courts has coordinated a cooperative interstate effort
to expand and standardize interpreter certification testing in states acrossthe U.S. That effort has led to the introducton of
performance-based proficiency testing programs in nine more states that previously had
no such programs: Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, and Virginia.
This presentation will summarize the test development procedures and key
structure elements of the several testing programs, highlighting basic
theoretical and functional differences among them. Issues in debate
among experienced test developers and administrators will be highlighted.
As experience has matured, it now seems reasonable to question some of
the foundation assumptions that have a bearing on test administration
costs when conventional models for testing procedures are followed. Some
promising lower-cost alternatives to conventional testing procedures
will be described, together with a prospectus for needed research.of the several testing program.
Models for delivering court interpreting services
[Abstract not available]
Computer assisted language testing for court interpreters
Advancements in computerbased technology provided the impetus for the Administrative Office of the Court's redesign of the State Court Language Interpreter Certification Examination.
The Certification Examination is an oral proficiency examination,
designed to assess an examinee's language knowledge, fluency, and accuracy in
three modes of interpreting: simultaneous, sight, and consecutive. Traditionally, test administration has involved interaction with
two trained testers/raters who grade performance as the examinee is taking
the exam. This labor intensive, individualized, and costly approach to
testing becomes problematic because of the large volume of interpreters
pursuing language proficiency certification.
In response to increased certification demands, the Administrative Officeof the Courts pioneered the integration of language proficiency
testing using CDROM technology. In support of this initiative, the State
Justice Institute provided funding through a technical assistance grant.
The developmental stages of the CDROM testing model included production of astandard BetaCam video of stimulus materials; digitizing the video
into readable computer information; and, developing the interactive
CDROM software.
A pilot validation study was structured to address a number of questions
related to the content validity of the proposed CDROM testing application.A review of the literature, while generally supportive of this
testing application, suggests that the content validity of the test is
dependent upon standardization of stimulus materials, quality of the
recorded testing stimuli, and the reduction of candidate anxiety.
Research data was compiled over the course of several months to develop
qualitative and quantitative information. Initial study results providestrong support for the continued exploration and development
of alternative test delivery systems. This paper will present and analyze theresults of the CDROM pilot validation study. Evidence will be presentedin the form of empirical data, reports of theoretical development
and conceptualization of the new procedure, reports of tester and
examine reactions to the new test and a discussion of implications for
further research and development of CDROM based testing applications.
-
Lois M. Feuerle, Office of Court Administration, New York City, and
Joanne I. Moore, Washington State Supreme Court
Equal access to justice: how much accuracy is enough?
It is not disputed that due process and equal protection require that linguistic minorities have full and free access to the courts in the USA; however, providing this access is a challenge for a variety of different reasons. Using short video clips to stimulate discussion, the two presenters, both of whom come from the dual backgrounds of law and court interpreting and both of whom head court interpreting units on the
state court level - explore the need for accuracy in the legal context and
what actually constitutes accuracy for the purposes of equal access to
justice for non-English-speaking litigants. Who is qualified to make this
decision and based on what criteria? The presenters will examine these and
related court interpreting issues and outline what progress has been made in thefield and what still remains to be done.
|