Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study

National Center for State Courts

  February 15, 1995
II.         Qualifications of the Court's Salaried Spanish Language Interpreters

II.

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE COURT'S SALARIED

SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

Findings

The centerpiece of this portion of the study is New Jersey's Screening Test for interpreting proficiency. The test was made available to the court free of charge the Administrative Office of the New Jersey Courts. New Jersey's test is generally similar to state certification tests used in California and Washington, and to the federal court certification test. It measures the interpreter's proficiency in the three modes of interpreting (simultaneous, consecutive and sight translation). Simultaneous interpreting is from English to Spanish; consecutive interpreting and sight translation includes English to Spanish and Spanish to English. All scoring is objective, based on predetermined scoring units, and candidates must correctly interpret 70% of the scoring units to achieve a passing score. Scores of 60% to 69% place a candidate in the "critical range"_-- eligible for continued employment, - but not fully qualified. The validity and reliability of the New Jersey test is well-documented, both as to content and procedures for administration and ratings.2

Fn2.  See, for example, Gonzalez, Vasquez and Mikelson, Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, Carolina Academic Press, 1991, pp 549-551 ; Hewitt, William Court Interpretation: Model Guides to Policy and Practice in the State Courts, National Center for State Courts, 1995, pp. 90-114.

Are Philadelphia's interpreters appropriately qualified for their jobs?

Yes. Table 1, below, shows how Philadelphia's interpreters scored on the exam. Special notice should be taken of the relative performance of Philadelphia's interpreters when compared with 556 other interpreter candidates who have taken the New Jersey test.

·         All of the interpreters scored high enough on the exam to meet New Jersey's minimum requirements for continued employment.

Two of the interpreters scored at levels that are considered below adequate {65%), but which (in the state of New Jersey) qualify the interpreter for continued employment, subject to improvement in skills.

    

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Candidates for vacant positions in the future should be required to take and pass a test similar to the New Jersey test of interpreting proficiency. 3  Position descriptions should be revised to reflect this requirement.

Fn 3 Under current policy in New Jersey, Philadelphia interpreters are able to take examinations offered in that state. By the end of 1995, it is anticipated that standardized tests will be available to subscribing jurisdictions through the State Court Language Interpreters Certification Consortium. The position description should specify that qualifications for employment include: 1) taking and passing a proficiency test established by the court that meets standards similar to the certification standards of the states of California, New Jersey, Washington, or the State Court Language Interpreter Certification Consortium, or 2) evidence of certification as a qualified interpreter by the federal courts, California, New Jersey, Washington or any state or local jurisdiction that offers certification tests which meet the guidelines and standards established by the State Court Language Interpreter Certification Consortium.

Comment: Historically, staff interpreters in Philadelphia have been screened before hiring. Screening consists of a multiple-choice - format written test of vocabulary, speed of comprehension, and level of comprehension in both English and Spanish. Candidates who pass the test are eligible for an oral examination, which they must also pass before hiring.4 This screening procedure reflects sound policy and no doubt explains the relatively high performance of Philadelphia's interpreters on the New Jersey test, when compared to all test-takers. On the other hand, tests and testing procedures that are well-documented and that have proven both valid and reliable are now available and should be used in the future? 5

Fn 4 The written test was developed by Guidance Testing Associates of St. Mary's University, San Antonio, Texas. The oral examination consists of selections from 'English-Spanish and Spanish-English translations of colloquy questions, crime definitions, and a trial transcript'. Raters for the examination (the 'Oral Board") consist of 'professional individuals form (sic) the Spanish-Community as recommended by [one of the court's Hispanic surnamed judges.]" No information is available regarding the detailed procedures followed for administering or rating candidate's performance during the examination, although the test results for the oral examination are report4 as numeric values on a 100 point scale. A weight of 60% is assigned to oral scores, 40% to written scores. Sources: Memos from Joseph Teti to Mathew F. Lewandowski, 7-1 0-90: 'Spanish Interpreter Written Examination” and "Spanish Interpreter -Oral Board Expenses”

Fn 5  A detailed investigation and discussion of the limitations of the testing approach used in the past in Philadelphia is beyond the scope of this study.

Recommendation 2

Interpreters who scored in the "critical range" (60-69%) should continue to improve their skills and be retested in twelve months.

Recommendation 3

The court should implement a differential salary structure to distinguish between interpreters who have achieved the recommended minimum proficiency score on the proficiency test and those who have not.  

Comment: There needs to be formal recognition of the relationship between the required performance skills and compensation. On the other hand, any test- taker may have a bad day (or a lucky day) when taking a formal test. -If the court accepts these recommendations, the interpreters should be formally notified of the approximate date of the retest, and the court's policy regarding salary increases and-performance on the test. The 'bottom line" expectation for the retest should be measurable improvement.

Recommendation 4

The court should periodically tape record interpreters during court proceedings, including both simultaneous and consecutive interpreting.  These tapes should be reviewed by the supervising interpreter and the staff interpreter as part of a performance monitoring program. Peer review and discussion of taped sessions is also recommended. (See recommendation 4, below.)

Comment: This recommendation merely reflects the principle that testing is used to determine minimum qualifications for employment. Continued attention to maintaining and improving skills is important. In this regard, the court should be clear about what the base "passing score" (70%) implies: it implies that minimally qualified interpreters may be distorting up to 30% of the message being conveyed every time they interpret.

Recommendation 5

Interpreters should conduct periodic study and practice sessions during the late afternoon (e.g., weekly, bi-weekly or at least monthly).

Comment: Workload for interpreters is generally light in the afternoon, which provides an opportunity for study. Working together provides an opportunity to share skills and reinforce a sense of professional community.

                          III.       Classification and Compensation of Salaried Interpreters

Go to Friends of Farmworkers Limited English Proficiency Links