Across Languages and Cultures
Volume/Issue:
Volume 23: Issue 1
Using computerised comparative judgement to assess translation
Authors:
Chao Han Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

Search for other papers by Chao Han in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6712-0555
,
Bei Hu National University of Singapore, Singapore

Search for other papers by Bei Hu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Qin Fan Southwest University, Chongqing, China

Search for other papers by Qin Fan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Jing Duan Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing, China

Search for other papers by Jing Duan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Xi Li University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Search for other papers by Xi Li in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
56–74
Online Publication Date:
09 May 2022
Publication Date:
09 May 2022
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2022.00001
Keywords:
computerised comparative judgement; paired comparison; translation quality; translation quality assessment; translation testing and assessment
Restricted access

Abstract

Translation assessment represents a productive line of research in Translation Studies. An array of methods has been trialled to assess translation quality, ranging from intuitive assessment to error analysis and from rubric scoring to item-based assessment. In this article, we introduce a lesser-known approach to translation assessment called comparative judgement. Rooted in psychophysical analysis, comparative judgement grounds itself on the assumption that humans tend to be more accurate in making relative judgements than in making absolute judgements. We conducted an experiment, as both a methodological exploration and a feasibility investigation, in which novice and experienced judges were recruited to assess English-Chinese translation, using a computerised comparative judgement platform. The collected data were analysed to shed light on the validity and reliability of assessment results and the judges’ perceptions. Our analysis shows that (1) overall, comparative judgement produced valid measures and facilitated judgement reliability, although such results seemed to be affected by translation directionality and judges’ experience, and (2) the judges were generally confident about their decisions, despite some emergent factors undermining the validity of their decision making. Finally, we discuss the use of comparative judgement as a possible method in translation assessment and its implications for future practice and research.

  • Andrich, D. (1978). Relationships between the Thurstone and Rasch approaches to item scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(3), 451–462.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Angelelli, V. C. (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In C. V. Angelelli , & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice (pp. 13–47). John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bowker, L. (2000). A corpus-based approach to evaluating student translations. The Translator, 6(2), 183–210.

  • Bradley, A. R. , & Terry, E. T. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4), 324–345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bramley, T. (2007). Paired comparison methods. In N. Paul , J. Baird , H. Goldstein , H. Patrick , & P. Tymms (Eds.), Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards (pp. 246–300). Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation: Some empirical evidence for a functionalist approach. The Translator, 14(1), 97–134.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Colina, S. (2009). Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation. Target, 21(2), 215–244.

  • De Sutter, G. , Cappelle, B. , De Clercq, O. , Loock, R. , & Plevoets, K. (2017). Towards a corpus-based, statistical approach of translation quality. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 25–39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Eckes, T. (2015). Introduction to many-facet Rasch measurement: Analyzing and evaluating rater-mediated assessments. Peter Lang.

  • Eyckmans, J. , & Anckaert, P. (2017). Item-based assessment of translation competence: Chimera of objectivity versus prospect of reliable measurement. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 40–56.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Eyckmans, J. , Anckaert, P. , & Segers, W. (2009). The perks of norm- referenced translation evaluation. In C. V. Angelelli , & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice (pp. 73–93). John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garant, M. (2009). A case for translation holistic assessment. AFinLA-e Soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia, 1, 5–17.

  • Gijsen, M. , van Daal, T. , Lesterhuis, M. , Gijbels, D. , & De Maeyer, S. (2021). The complexity of comparative judgments in assessing argumentative writing: An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 582800.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gouadec, D. (1981). Paramètres de l’evaluation des traductions. Meta, 26(2), 99–116.

  • Han, C. (2020). Translation quality assessment: a critical methodological review. The Translator, 26(3), 257–273.

  • Han, C. (2022). Assessing spoken-language interpreting: The method of comparative judgement. Interpreting, 24(1), 59–83.

  • Han, C. (2021). Analytic rubric scoring versus comparative judgment: A comparison of two approaches to assessing spoken-language interpreting. Meta, 66(2), 239–504.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Han, C. , Shang, X. , (Forthcoming). An item-based, Rasch-calibrated approach to assessing translation quality. Target. Submitted for publication.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Han, C. , & Xiao, X. (2021). A comparative judgment approach to assessing Chinese Sign Language interpreting. Language Testing. Advance online publication.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hatim, B. , & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. Routledge.

  • House, J. (2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary approach. Palgrave advances in language and linguistics (pp. 241–264). Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jones, I. , & Inglis, M. (2015). The problem of assessing problem solving: Can comparative judgement help? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3), 337–355.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jones, I. , Swan, M. , & Pollitt, A. (2015). Assessing mathematical problem solving using comparative judgement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 151–177.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kockaert, J. H. , & Segers, W. (2014). Evaluation de la traduction: La méthode PIE (Preselected Items Evaluation). Turjuman, 23(2), 232–250.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kockaert, J. H. , & Segers, W. (2017). Evaluation of legal translations: PIE method (Preselected Items Evaluation). Journal of Specialised Translation, (27), 148–163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. Wiley.

  • Martínez Mateo, R. (2014). A deeper look into metrics for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A case study. Miscelanea, (49), 73–93.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McAlester, G. (2000). The evaluation of translation into a foreign language. In C. Schäffner , & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 229–241). John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McMahon, S. , & Jones, I. (2015). A comparative judgement approach to teacher assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 368–389.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. In C. Dollerup , & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training talent and experience (pp. 279–288). John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • QSR International Pty Ltd . (2015) NVivo (Version 11). [Computer software]. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sager, J. (1989). Quality and standards: The evaluation of translations. In C. Picken (Ed.), The translator’s handbook (pp. 91–102). ASLIB.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Secară, A. (2005). Translation evaluation—A state of the art survey. In Proceeding of the eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop: Resources and tools for e-Learning in translation and localisation (pp. 39–44). St. Jerome.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Steedle, T. J. , & Ferrara, S. (2016). Evaluating comparative judgement as an approach to essay scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(3), 211–223.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273–286.

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1959). The measurement of values. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Turner, B. , Miranda, L. , & Huang, N. (2010). Error deduction and descriptors – A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment. Translation & Interpreting, 2(1), 11–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Van Daal, T. , Lesterhuis, M. , Coertjens, L. , Donche, V. , & De Maeyer, S. (2019). Validity of comparative judgement to assess academic writing: Examining implications of its holistic character and building on a shared consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(1), 59–74.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Verhavert, S. , Bouwer, R. , Donche, V. , & De Maeyer, S. (2019). A meta-analysis on the reliability of comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 26(5), 541–562.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Verhavert, S. , De Maeyer, S. , Donche, V. , & Coertjens, L. (2018). Scale separation reliability: What does it mean in the context of comparative judgement? Applied Psychological Measurement, 42(6), 428–445.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Waddington, C. (2001a). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311–325.

  • Waddington, C. (2001b). Should translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis? Hermes, 14(26), 15–38.

  • Williams, M. (1989). The assessment of professional translation quality: Creating credibility out of chaos. Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction, 2(2), 13–33.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Williams, M. (2001). The application of argumentation theory to translation quality assessment. Meta, 46(2), 327–344.

  • Wu, S. (2010). Assessing simultaneous interpreting: A study on test reliability and examiners’ assessment behaviour. Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Across Languages and Cultures
Across Languages and Cultures
Print ISSN:
1585-1923
Online ISSN:
1588-2519

Editor-in-Chief: Krisztina KÁROLY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)

Consulting Editor: Dániel MÁNY  (Semmelweis University, Hungary)

Managing Editor: Réka ESZENYI (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)

Founding Editor-in-Chief: Kinga KLAUDY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)

EDITORIAL BOARD

  • Andrew CHESTERMAN (University of Helsinki, Finland)
  • Kirsten MALMKJÆR (University of Leicester, UK)
  • Christiane NORD (University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa)
  • Anthony PYM (Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain, University of Melbourne, Australia)
  • Mary SNELL-HORNBY (University of Vienna, Austria)
  • Sonja TIRKKONEN-CONDIT (University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland)

ADVISORY BOARD

  • Mona BAKER (Shanghai International Studies University, China, University of Oslo, Norway)
  • Łucja BIEL (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Gloria CORPAS PASTOR (University of Malaga, Spain; University of Wolverhampton, UK)
  • Rodica DIMITRIU (Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Iasi, Romania)
  • Birgitta Englund DIMITROVA (Stockholm University, Sweden)
  • Sylvia KALINA (Cologne Technical University, Germany)
  • Haidee KOTZE (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)
  • Sara LAVIOSA (Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Italy)
  • Brian MOSSOP (York University, Toronto, Canada)
  • Orero PILAR (Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain)
  • Gábor PRÓSZÉKY (Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungary)
  • Alessandra RICCARDI (University of Trieste, Italy)
  • Edina ROBIN (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Myriam SALAMA-CARR (University of Manchester, UK)
  • Mohammad Saleh SANATIFAR (independent researcher, Iran)
  • Sanjun SUN (Beijing Foreign Studies University, China)
  • Anikó SOHÁR (Pázmány Péter Catholic University,  Hungary)
  • Sonia VANDEPITTE (University of Gent, Belgium)
  • Albert VERMES (Eszterházy Károly University, Hungary)
  • Yifan ZHU (Shanghai Jiao Tong Univeristy, China)

Prof. Dr. Krisztina KÁROLY 
School of English and American Studies, Eötvös Loránd University
H-1088 Budapest, Rákóczi út 5., Hungary 
E-mail: 

  • WoS Arts & Humanities Citation Index
  • Wos Social Sciences Citation Index
  • WoS Essential Science Indicators
  • Scopus
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • Translation Studies Abstractst
  • CABELLS Journalytics

2023  
Web of Science  
Journal Impact Factor 1.0
Rank by Impact Factor Q2 (Linguistics)
Journal Citation Indicator 0.76
Scopus  
CiteScore 1.7
CiteScore rank Q1 (Language and Linguistics)
SNIP 1.223
Scimago  
SJR index 0.671
SJR Q rank Q1

Across Languages and Cultures
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee

none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2025 Online subsscription: 362 EUR / 398 USD
Print + online subscription: 420 EUR / 462 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Across Languages and Cultures
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation		 1999
Volumes
per Year		 1
Issues
per Year		 2
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1585-1923 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2519 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Aug 2024 139 1 1
Sep 2024 75 0 0
Oct 2024 260 3 5
Nov 2024 134 1 2
Dec 2024 64 4 6
Jan 2025 57 0 0
Feb 2025 0 0 0