The impact of an industry-driven translation training program on the performance of trainee translators

Figures & data

Figure 1. The Translog interface.

Figure 2. A breakdown of the tasks and domains covered during the training program.

Table 1. Rubric for assessment of the trainees’ translations.

Indicator	Definition	Score
Language	Grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation	2
Accuracy	Does the translation accurately reflect the original text? unnecessary omissions, additions and inaccurate cross-references in their definitions	2
Terminology	adherence to client glossary, adherence to industry terminology, consistency	2
Clarity	Is the translation straightforward to understand?	2
Style:	Does the translation maintain the same style as the original text? Tone, register, language variants, slang, literal translations and awkward syntax	2
Total	10

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of pretest and posttest scores.

	N	Median	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Pretest	18	5.5000	5.2222	1.68228	2	8.00
Posttest	18	7.5000	7.2778	1.10457	4	9.00

Table 3. Negative and positive ranks.

Pretest & posttest		N	Mean ranks	Sum of ranks
Posttest – pretest	Negative ranks	1	7	7
	Positive ranks	14	8	113
	Ties	3
	Total	18

Table 4. Wilcoxon signed-rank test statistics.

Test	M	Mdn	SD	Z	p Value	R
Pretest	5.2222	5.5000	1.68228	3.028–	.002	.713
Posttest	7.2778	7.5000	1.10457

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of assessment indicators before and after the treatment.

Indicator	Before	After
	Median	Median
Language	0000	1.0000
Accuracy	1.0000	2.0000
Terminology	1.0000	1.0000
Style	1.0000	2.0000
Clarity	2.0000	2.0000

Table 6. Wilcoxon signed-rank Test Statistics.

Test	Z	p Value	R
Language before and after	−2.673	.008	0.63
Accuracy before and after	−2.530	.011	0.59
Terminology before and after	−1.933	.053	0.45
Style before and after	−3.000	.034	0.71
Clarity before and after	−2.121	.003	0.49