101 Review Historical ITP Results

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled Review Historical ITP Results. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: Comprehensive and accessible data about ITP results is not readily available.

Proposed Solution: ITPs share data they have. ITPs also collaborate with the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (CIT) and the Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE) to determine what data to gather and report to assist with 1) prospective students’ decision-making and 2) program improvements for ITPs. Relevant ITPs include: North Central University Saint Paul College St. Catherine’s University Augustana University, Sioux Falls, South Dakota University of Northern Colorado – online program Metro State University – no interpreting degree, but many students create their own degree in interpreting and sit for RID certification after completing their studies at MSU

Expected outcome: Identifying what is needed to make interpreter training program improvements.

Who is impacted: Prospective students and exiting students

Timeline: 6 months

Note: Gathering information on the outcomes for students from these ITPs is the first step for further discussion on revisions to programming for any ITP. Any ITP that has gone through CCIE’s accreditation process will likely already have recommendations for improvement.

Video description: A person is summarizing the level of support that this solution received.

Summary of Support

Of the 112 responses, the majority supported reviewing historical ITP results. Interpreter Training Program respondents were slightly more opposed compared to other groups.

Summary of Support Image Description

The stacked bar charts show how respondents rated their level of support and the total number of responses. The percentage for the five support levels is shown from left to right: Strongly Oppose (Dark Red), Oppose (Light Red), Neutral (Yellow), Support (Light Blue), and Strongly Support (Dark Blue).

Respondents may identify with multiple subgroups. The overall level of support is:

Overall
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 1%
Neutral: 21%
Support: 43%
Strongly Support: 36%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 36%
Strongly Support: 39%

Non-Certified Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 7%
Support: 64%
Strongly Support: 28%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 17%
Support: 48%
Strongly Support: 34%

Interpreter Training Program
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 12%
Neutral: 38%
Support: 12%
Strongly Support: 38%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 3%
Neutral: 26%
Support: 39%
Strongly Support: 32%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 5% of the 112 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (6 respondents), 100% supported the solution, 0% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.

The remaining 106 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 77% support the solution, 21% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.

Reviewer Evaluation of Solution Effectiveness

Solution Effectiveness Image Description

The stacked bar charts show how respondents assessed the effectiveness of this solution based on five metrics. For each metric, the percentage of respondents is shown from left to right: Worsens (Red), Improves (Blue), No Impact (Gray).

DDBHH Quality of Life
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Interpreter Satisfaction
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 75%
No Impact 25%

Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Reviewer Feedback and Insights

Interpreter

Comments from Interpreters highlight the difficulty of gathering post-graduation data on certification and employment, suggesting the need for paid supervised externships to improve outcomes. One comment suggests hiring a third party to handle data analysis to reduce the burden on ITP staff. One comment emphasizes the importance of increasing outreach to BIPOC communities and hiring more Deaf faculty to diversify the interpreting field.

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing

No comments were submitted.

System Stakeholder

Comments from System stakeholders support gathering post-graduation data.