___

• Altman, J. (1994) Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds), Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 25–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bahman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analysis for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bao, C. (2015). Pedagogy. In R. Jourdenais & H. Mikkelson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 400-416). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Barik, H. C. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 16(4), 199-210.
• Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553.
• Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235.
• Campbell, S. & Hale, S. (2003). Chapter 15. Translation and Interpreting Assessment in the Context of Educational Measurement. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation Today (pp. 205-224). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596179-017
• Cheung, A. K. -F. (2007). The effectiveness of summary training in consecutive interpreting (CI) delivery. Forum, 5(2), 1–23.
• Child, D. (2004). Psychology and the Teacher (7th ed.). London, New York: Continuum.
• Choi, J. Y. (2006). Metacognitive evaluation method in consecutive interpretation for novice learners. Meta, 51(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.7202/013256ar
• Clifford, A. (2001). Discourse theory and performance-based assessment: Two tools for professional interpreting. Meta, 46 (2), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.7202/002345ar
• Deysel, E. (2018). Self-assessment by computer-assisted interpreter training (CAIT) for practicing interpreters: parliament as a case study (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
• Doğan, A., Ribas, M. A., Mora-Rubio, B. (2009). Metacognitive tools in interpreting training: A pilot study. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters), 26(1), 69-84.
• Fowler, Y. (2007). Formative Assessment: Using Peer and Self-Assessment in Interpreter Training. In C. Wadensjö, B. E. Dimitrova, & A-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, (pp. 253–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Gile, D. (1995). Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: An experiment. Target, 7(1), 151–164.
• Gile, D. (2001). L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation en cours deformation. Meta, 46(2), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.7202/002890ar
• Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press.
• Han, C. (2015). Investigating rater severity/leniency in interpreter performance testing: A multifaceted Rasch measurement approach. Interpreting, 17(2), 255-283.
• Han, C. (2017). Using Analytic Rating Scales to Assess English/Chinese Bidirectional Interpretation: A Longitudinal Rasch Analysis of Scale Utility and Rater Behavior. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series –Themes in Translation Studies 16, 196–215.
• Han, C. (2018a). A longitudinal quantitative investigation into the concurrent validity of self and peer assessment applied to English-Chinese bi-directional interpretation in an undergraduate interpreting course. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.01.001
• Han, C. (2018b). Latent trait modelling of rater accuracy in formative peer assessment of English-Chinese consecutive interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43(6): 979– 994. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424799
• Han, C. (2018c). Using rating scales to assess interpretation: Practices, problems and prospects. Interpreting, 20(1), 59 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00003.han
• Han, C. (2019). Conceptualizing and operationalizing a formative assessment model for English-Chinese consecutive interpreting: a case study in an undergraduate interpreting course. In Huertas-Barros, E., Vandepitte, S., & Iglesias-Fernández, E. (Eds.), Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 89-111). IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch004
• Han, C. & Fan, Q. (2020). Using self-assessment as a formative assessment tool in an English-Chinese interpreting course: student views and perceptions of its utility. Perspectives, 28(1), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615516
• Han, C. & Riazi, M. (2018) The accuracy of student self-assessments of English-Chinese bidirectional interpretation: a longitudinal quantitative study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 386-398, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1353062
• Han, C. & Zhao, X. (2020): Accuracy of peer ratings on the quality of spoken-language interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1855624
• Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London & New York: Routledge.
• Iglesias Fernández, E. (2011). Under examination. do all interpreting examiners use the same criteria? The Linguist, 50(2), 12-13.
• Iglesias Fernández, E. (2013). Unpacking delivery criteria in interpreting quality assessment. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language, translation and interpreting (pp.51- 56). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Kalina, S. (2005). Quality assurance for interpreting processes. Meta, 50 (2), 768–784.
• Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: User expectations. In D. L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of age. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the American translators association (pp. 143-148). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
• Kurz, I. (2001). Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta, 46 (2), 394–409.
• Lee, J. (2008). Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
• Lee, S. -B. (2015). Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances. Interpreting, 17(2), 226–254. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.04lee
• Lee, S.-B. (2017). University students’ experience of ‘scale-referenced’ peer assessment for a consecutive interpreting examination. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42 (7), 1015–1029. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1223269
• Lee, S.-B. (2019). Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: self-reflection from an action researcher. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 152-172.
• Lee, Y.-H. (2011). Comparing self-assessment and teacher’s assessment in interpreter training. T&I Review, 1, 87–111.
• Lee, Z. (2015). The reflection and self-assessment of student interpreters through logbooks: a case study (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
• Niska, H. (2005). Training interpreters: Programmes, curricula, practice. In M. Tennent (ed.), Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting (pp. 36–64). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Orlando, M. (2010). Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 71- 86.
• Postigo Pinazo, E. (2008). Self-assessment in teaching interpreting. TTR (Traduction, terminologie, rédaction), 21(1), 173–209. https://doi.org/10.7202/029690ar
• Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta, 46(2), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar
• Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
• Riccardi, A. (2002). Evaluation in interpreting: Macrocriteria and microcriteria. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4 (pp. 115-126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Roat, C. E. (2006). Certification of health care interpreters in the United States: A primer, a status report and considerations for national certification. Los Angeles, CA: The California Endowment.
• Sawyer, D. B. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.47
• Schjoldager, A. (1996). Assessment of simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons (pp. 187–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: a trainer’s guide. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120
• Shlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research (pp. 123-131). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Su, W. (2019). Interpreting quality as evaluated by peer students. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(2), 177–189. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2018.1564192
• Topping, K. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249
• Topping, K. (2009). Peer Assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569.
• Wang, J. -H., Napier, J., Goswell, D. & Carmichael, A. (2015). The design and application of rubrics to assess signed language interpreting performance. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1009261
• Wu, S. C. (2010). Assessing simultaneous interpreting: A study on test reliability and examiners’ assessment behavior (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Newcastle University, the UK.