The Interpreter and Translator Trainer

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ritt20

Introduction to the special issue Revisiting aptitude

testing for interpreting

Xiaoqi Shang, Mariachiara Russo & Catherine Chabasse

To cite this article: Xiaoqi Shang, Mariachiara Russo & Catherine Chabasse (2023) Introduction
to the special issue Revisiting aptitude testing for interpreting, The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer, 17:1, 1-6, DOI: 10.1080/1750399X.2023.2170042

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2023.2170042

Published online: 23 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 624

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ritt20
THE INTERPRETER AND TRANSLATOR TRAINER
2023, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 1–6
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2023.2170042

Introduction to the special issue Revisiting aptitude testing for

interpreting
a
Xiaoqi Shang , Mariachiara Russob and Catherine Chabassec
a
College of International Studies, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China; bDepartment of Interpreting and
Translation, University of Bologna at Forlì, Bologna, Italy; cDepartment of Intercultural German Studies,
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Aptitude testing plays an important role in interpreter training as it Received 27 December 2022
helps to screen prospective trainee interpreters, ensuring the qual­ Accepted 13 January 2023
ity of training. However, there has been scant interest in this line of KEYWORDS
inquiry among interpreting scholars. This special issue focuses on Aptitude testing; predictive
the conceptualisation of aptitude and exploration of the predictive validity; empirical studies;
validity of aptitude testing batteries or components for interpreting aptitude-treatment
performance from multiple theoretical perspectives using a wide paradigm
array of methodologies. Firstly, Han’s meta-analysis provides
a comprehensive methodological overview of the current research
on predictive validity of aptitude testing for interpreting. Next,
Hlavac’s survey-based study focuses on the conceptualisation of
interpreting aptitude by incorporating multi-stakeholder views. The
ensuing three empirical studies by Liu and Zhang, Shang and Xie
and Lu and Liu have explored the predictive validity of the tests that
were replicated, currently used and self-designed respectively. The
last three studies, by Su, Xu, and Song and Li, adopt an aptitude-
treatment paradigm to explore the different effects of aptitude
components, such as learners’ emotions and cognitive fluency, on
interpreting performance under different treatment conditions.
These eight articles are expected to stir the research community’s
interest in aptitude testing for interpreting, a highly relevant yet
significantly under-examined area in interpreting studies.

This special issue focuses on the conceptualisation of aptitude and exploration of the
predictive validity of aptitude testing batteries or components for interpreting perfor­
mance from multiple theoretical perspectives using a wide array of methodologies.
Aptitude for interpreting can be defined as ‘an overall term encompassing abilities, skills
and personal traits deemed necessary or reliable predictors of successful interpreter
training’ (Russo 2011, 25). Reliable aptitude tests for interpreting can ensure the ‘best
use of resources’ and ‘high success rates’, ‘avoid unnecessary disappointment’, and
‘maintain high standards’ (Setton and Dawrant 2016, 103). Therefore, aptitude testing
plays an important role in interpreter training as it helps to screen promising prospective
trainee interpreters, thus ensuring high quality of training.

CONTACT Xiaoqi Shang shangxq@szu.edu.cn

College of International Studies, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 X. SHANG ET AL.

However, there has been scant interest in this line of inquiry among interpreting
scholars in the past decades. More recently, a number of interpreting researchers and
those from neighbouring disciplines focused their attention on aptitude, which culmi­
nated in the publication of Aptitude for Interpreting, a special issue of Interpreting edited
by Shlesinger and Pöchhacker (2011). Researchers have attempted to conceptualise
aptitude and to explore the validity and reliability of a variety of aptitude testing batteries
from diverse theoretical and empirical perspectives (see the special issue for an overview).
Nonetheless, the lack of studies that can offer sufficient guidance for screening prospec­
tive trainee interpreters, observed by Shlesinger and Pöchhacker (2011, 1), persists to
this day.
More than ten years since that special issue, aptitude testing remains a highly under-
examined area in the broader context of interpreting studies, and only sporadic scholarly
efforts regarding this line of research have recently been made (Gambrell and Lesch 2021;
Liu and Zhang 2022; Shang and Xie 2020; Xing 2015; Zha 2016). Due to the exponential
increase in the number of training institutions for interpreters, especially in China (with
319 master’s and 309 bachelor’s programmes), it seems necessary to also incorporate
studies conducted in those geographical contexts, with more homogeneous trainee
populations and structurally different language combinations.
Furthermore, the theoretical advances and insights from the neighbouring disciplines
of language testing, foreign language education and cognitive psychology, as well as the
wide availability of psychometric instruments, have provided a fertile ground for research
on aptitude for interpreting, and the first fruits of these new inter-disciplinary efforts are
emerging. Against this backdrop, we felt that the time had come to revisit this topic by
encouraging scholars to share their findings in another special issue.
This special issue brings together scholars from settings where research on aptitude is
now extremely active, namely China and Australia. The eight articles collected in this
issue shed light on the soundness of current and new aptitude tests and provide much-
needed empirical data.
The opening article, ‘Interrogating the predictive validity of aptitude testing for
interpreting: a systematic methodological review’ by Chao Han, provides a critical over­
view of the literature on aptitude tests between 1930 and 2021 and a thorough analysis of
publications selected from that timeframe focusing on the substantive meaning, psycho­
metric soundness, and statistical analytic rigour underpinning the predictive validity
evidence of aptitude tests. With his systematic investigation into the different methodol­
ogies, the author contributes to developing a frame of reference for current and future
research. The next article – ‘Knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) as a metric to re-
conceptualise aptitude: a multi-stakeholder perspective’ by Jim Hlavac – suggests
a conceptualisation of aptitude and investigates the reference of KSAs made by four
‘stakeholder areas’ relevant to interpreter performance, namely interpreter training and
testing educators, testing/credentialing authorities, industry-based organisations, and
trainee and practising interpreters. The author interestingly shows how the four stake­
holders differ in identifying and attaching priority to KSAs.
As predictive validity is the most salient feature of aptitude tests (Timarová and
Ungoed-Thomas 2009), the next three empirical studies explore the predictive validity
of aptitude testing by focusing on specific testing batteries that are replicated, self-
designed or widely adopted in interpreter training institutions.
 THE INTERPRETER AND TRANSLATOR TRAINER 3

First, Yubo Liu and Wei Zhang’s study entitled ‘Discourse-based recall, language
anxiety and achievement motive’ replicates prior studies by applying their tests in the
Chinese context, namely the Logical Memory Test (LMT), the Scale of Language Anxiety
(SLA) and the Achievement Motivation Test (AMT). The results show that only LMT
appears to be a good indicator of interpreting aptitude for consecutive interpreting (CI)
and that directionality plays a role in predictivity. Since soft skill tests have so little
predictive power, the authors advocate for the testing of hard skills, such as the use of
speech-based recall tests in entrance exams, at least until more rigorous psychological
tests are developed.
Following this line of research, Xiaoqi Shang and Guixia Xie’s ‘Investigating sight
translation as a predictor of interpreting performance’ explores the predictive power of
sight translation in trainee interpreters. Their results suggest that the trainees’ perfor­
mances in sight translation were not predictive of their performances in either consecu­
tive (CI) or simultaneous interpreting (SI), irrespective of the language direction. These
findings echo the view that sight translation is more of an ‘acquired skill’ than it is an
aspect of ‘interpreter readiness’ (Angelelli 2007, 74), and therefore, their inclusion in
aptitude testing batteries may not be really useful.
Finally, the empirical study by Xinchao Lu and Xiuling Xu entitled ‘Testing aptitude
for simultaneous interpreting: the predictive validity of recall and lexical-syntactic flex­
ibility test’ examines the predictive validity of recall and of the lexical-syntactic flexibility
test (LSFT) for SI. The study shows that LSFT is predictive of Chinese-English SI
performance, but not recall. It is worth noting that Shang and Shang and Xie’s (2020)
previous study on recall across languages suggested that there was a significant correla­
tion between trainee interpreters’ Chinese-English recall and their CI performances. One
key take-away of this study might be that we should call for mode-specific aptitude tests,
as, apparently, ‘some tests are more predictive for simultaneous than for consecutive
interpretation’ (Russo 2011).
Individual differences (IDs) constitute one of the key areas in second language
acquisition. IDs have been found to have a significant impact on learning outcomes
(e.g., Dörnyei 2010; Robinson 2002, 2002). They can be broadly defined as cognitive and
affective, with the former consisting of variables such as intelligence, language learning
aptitude and working memory, and the latter including anxiety, motivation and emotion
(Robinson 2002, IX). In line with this categorisation of learners’ IDs, the last three
empirical articles in this special issue focus on the aptitude-treatment interaction, i.e.,
the effect of aptitude on learning outcome under different points of time and treatment
conditions. They thus add a new aspect, namely the didactic dimension, to research on
aptitude.
‘Investigating student interpreters’ emotional component of aptitude’ by Wei Su is the
first article of this set. Learner emotions have been an important line of enquiry in the
research on aptitude for interpreting (e.g., Bontempo and Napier 2014; Lambert 1992;
Shaw and Hughes 2006), but very few studies identified students’ emotional state as
important aptitude constituents or tracked its developmental patterns. To fill this gap, Su
conducted a mixed-method longitudinal study involving 116 Chinese interpreting trai­
nees and was able to show the roles of both positive and negative emotional traits in long-
term engagement with learning and interpreting proficiency. Based on his results, the
author offers insightful recommendations for interpreter education.
4 X. SHANG ET AL.

In her article titled ‘Exploring individual differences in the prediction of awareness and
improvement in trainee interpreters’, Yi Xu attempts to fill a similar gap in aptitude
research. As learning is an outcome of ‘the interaction between learner characteristics,
and learning contexts’ (Robinson 2002, 10), Xu considers that not enough attention has
been paid to the effect of instructional practices on individual characteristics. In her
exploratory study, the author examined the relationship between learners’ ID variables
(working memory and motivation), awareness and interpreting performances under dif­
ferent feedback conditions (implicit, explicit and mixed feedback). Xu’s results show that
aptitude is more strongly correlated with learning outcomes under explicit instruction than
it is under implicit instruction, thus corroborating the results of a number of studies of
foreign language education (Hwu and Sun 2012; Li 2011; Robinson 1995). Xu’s results
could inform interpreter training by tailoring aptitude components to different instruc­
tional contexts, thus making instruction more efficient and meaningful. In addition,
although short in duration, Xu’s situated study represents a paradigm shift in research on
aptitude for interpreting from ‘predicting’ (focusing on purely investigating the correlations
between aptitude and learning outcomes) to ‘explaining’ (focusing on investigating the
underlying learning mechanisms) (Wen, Biedron, and Skehan 2017). More of such multi-
disciplinary scholarly efforts are needed to continue exploring aptitude.
Expanding on this topic in depth and breadth, the last article in this special issue,
‘Aptitude for interpreting: the predictive value of cognitive fluency’ by Shuxian Song and
Dechao Li, investigates the predictive power of cognitive fluency (lexical access, lexical
retrieval, linguistic attention control and working memory capacity) for trainee inter­
preters’ SI performances by adopting a pre-test/post-test design with two treatment
conditions (task complexity and training effect). According to the authors’ findings,
constructs of cognitive fluency might serve as predictors for interpreting performance,
but the predictive value of cognitive fluency is influenced by cognitive load and inter­
preter training. While prior studies on aptitude testing for interpreting have also
explored the effect of cognition-related aptitude variables such as ‘cognitive flexibility’
(Timarová and Salaets 2014), and ‘domain-general cognitive abilities’ (Macnamara et al.
2014), their findings primarily reported correlations between aptitude variables and
interpreting performance, without taking into consideration the different dynamics of
aptitude effect under different treatment conditions. Therefore, methodologically, the
present multi-disciplinary study has broadened the avenue for research on aptitude in
interpreting studies. Future research endeavours could be directed towards exploring the
effect of aptitude components on interpreting performances using an interactional
approach by focusing on different types of instruction, such as, for instance, different
types of corrective feedback, deductive and inductive instruction and incidental learning.
From a practical perspective, the findings of this study provide much-needed empirical
evidence for the inclusion of cognitive fluency tasks into interpreting aptitude batteries.
Overall, the evidence-based and data-driven studies in this special issue have explored
the effect of a variety of aptitude components on interpreting performance from various
multi-disciplinary perspectives and using robust methods, which makes this joint effort
a natural continuation and a timely update of the previous seminal 2011 special issue of
Interpreting devoted to aptitude testing. We hope that the panoramic view of the current
research on aptitude provided by this special issue will inspire trainers, interpreting
curricula and admission testing designers, and prompt more scholars to engage in this
 THE INTERPRETER AND TRANSLATOR TRAINER 5

under-researched yet extremely important stream of research in interpreting studies and

interpreter education.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Fund for Social Sciences [No. 21BYY064].

ORCID
Xiaoqi Shang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2699-1020

References
Angelelli, C. V. 2007. “Assessing Medical Interpreters: The Language and Interpreting Testing
Project.” The Translator 13 (1): 63–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00129.x.
Bontempo, K., and J. Napier. 2014. “Evaluating Emotional Stability as a Predictor of Interpreter
Competence and Aptitude for Interpreting.” In Aptitude for Interpreting, edited by
F. Pöchhacker and M. Liu, 87–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z. 2010. “The Relationship between Language Aptitude and Language Learning
Motivation: Individual Differences from a Dynamic Systems Perspective.” In Continuum
Companion to Second Language Acquisition, edited by E. Macaro, 247–267. London:
Continuum.
Gambrell, S., and H. Lesch. 2021. “Interpreter Training: Devising a Model for Aptitude Testing for
Simultaneous Interpreters.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 61 (127–149). doi:10.5842/
61-0-921.
Hwu, F., and S. Sun. 2012. “The aptitude-treatment Interaction Effects on the Learning of grammar
Rules.” System 40 (4): 505–521. doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.10.009.
Lambert, S. 1992. “Aptitude Testing for Simultaneous Interpretation at the University of Ottawa.”
The Interpreters’ Newsletter 4: 25–32.
Li, S. 2011. “Interactions between Feedback Type, Proficiency, Linguistic Target, and Individual
Differences in Language Analytic Ability and Working Memory.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University.
Liu, Y., and W. Zhang. 2022. “‘Exploring the Predictive Validity of an Interpreting Aptitude Test
Battery.” Interpreting 24 (2): 279–308. 10.1075/intp.00078.liu.
Macnamara, B., A. Moore, J. Kegl, and A. Conway. 2014. “Domain-general Cognitive Abilities and
Simultaneous Interpreting Skill.” In Aptitude for Interpreting, edited by F. Pöchhacker and
M. Liu, 107–128. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. 1995. “Aptitude, Awareness and the Fundamental Similarity of Implicit and Explicit
Foreign Language Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, edited
by R. Schmidt, 303–357. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai Press.
Robinson, P. 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Russo, M. 2011. “Aptitude Testing over the Years.” Interpreting 13 (1): 6–30. doi:10.1075/intp.13.1.
02rus.
Setton, R., and A. Dawrant. 2016. Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
6 X. SHANG ET AL.

Shang, X., and G. Xie. 2020. “Aptitude for Interpreting Revisited: Predictive Validity of Recall
across Languages.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14 (3): 344–361. doi:10.1080/
1750399X.2020.1790970.
Shaw, S., and G. F. Hughes 2006. “Essential Characteristics of Sign Language Interpreting Students:
Perspectives of Students and Faculty.” Interpreting 8 (2): 195–221. doi:10.1075/INTP.8.2.05SHA
Shlesinger, M., and F. Pöchhacker. 2011. “‘Aptitude for Interpreting.” Interpreting 13 (1): 1–4. 10.
1075/intp.13.01apt.
Timarová, Š., and H. Salaets. 2014. “Learning Styles, Motivation and Cognitive Flexibility in
Interpreter Training: Self-reflection and Aptitude.” In Aptitude for Interpreting, edited by
F. Pöchhacker and M. Liu, 33–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Timarová, Š., and H. Ungoed-Thomas. 2009. “The Predictive Validity of Admissions Tests for
Conference Interpreting Courses in Europe.” Testing and Assessment in Translation and
Interpreting Studies: A Call for Dialogue between Research and Practice edited by
C. V. Angelelli and H. E. Jacobson 225–246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Wen, Z., A. Biedron, and P. Skehan. 2017. “Foreign Language Aptitude Theory: Yesterday, Today
and Tomorrow.” Language Teaching 50 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1017/S0261444816000276.
Xing, X. 2015. “Aptitude for Interpreting and Its Research: A Case Study of MTI Entrance Exams
in China.” Foreign Language Testing and Teaching 3: 9–15.
Zha, J. 2016. “The Past, Present and Future of Aptitude Testing for Interpreting: A survey-based
Study on the Entrance Tests for Interpreting at Home and Abroad.” The Chinese Translators’
Journal 37 (4): 54–60.