7 RateMyInterpreter.Com as a Way to Support Professional Development for Interpreters and Transparency for Consumers

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled RateMyInterpreter.Com as a Way to Support Professional Development for Interpreters and Transparency for Consumers. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: A platform is needed to provide feedback on interpreting services.

Proposed Solution: Coalition with MRID develop a cross-cutting working group, led by CDIs, DDBHH consumers and hearing interpreters, would gather input and develop the process and format for information that would be included in a standard “ratemyinterpreter” concept. Many suggestions have already been shared of content to include, such as a video introduction by the interpreter, skill sets and specializations.

Expected outcome: DDBHH people will experience more transparency about interpreters skills and specializations. Open feedback mechanisms are also an opportunity for interpreters to gain feedback they may not receive from other mechanisms.

Who is impacted: Consumers, hiring entities, interpreters

Timeline: 6 months

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

Summary of Support

The majority of the 133 respondents supported professional development for interpreters and transparency for consumers via RateMyInterpreter.Com. However, a large fraction was neutral or opposed the solution. 23% of interpreters were opposed. Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing consumers were less opposed.

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: 7%
Oppose: 10%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 28%
Strongly Support: 32%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 7%
Oppose: 16%
Neutral: 16%
Support: 30%
Strongly Support: 30%

Deaf
Strongly Oppose: 5%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 30%
Support: 34%
Strongly Support: 30%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 4%
Oppose: 1%
Neutral: 28%
Support: 31%
Strongly Support: 35%

DeafBlind
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 0%
Support: 0%
Strongly Support: 100%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 7%
Oppose: 11%
Neutral: 25%
Support: 32%
Strongly Support: 25%

Hard of Hearing
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 20%
Support: 0%
Strongly Support: 80%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 8% of the 133 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (11 respondents), 45% supported the solution, 9% were neutral on the solution, and 45% opposed the solution.

The remaining 122 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 62% support the solution, 23% were neutral on the solution, and 13% 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 87%
No Impact 12%

Interpreter Satisfaction
Makes It Worse 21%
Makes It Better 57%
No Impact 21%

Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 5%
Makes It Better 80%
No Impact 15%

Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 46%
Makes It Better 23%
No Impact 30%

Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 16%
Makes It Better 66%
No Impact 16%

Reviewer Feedback and Insights

Interpreter

Comments from Interpreters broadly indicated concerns that lack of fairness and confidentiality may reduce interpreting availability and disproportionately impact recent interpreting graduates. Comments also expressed confusion on the mechanisms of how a rating system leads to improvements in interpreting quality, noted that potential conflicts of interest can arise regarding ownership of such a platform, and indicated that the process of providing constructive feedback should be distinct from the process of filing a complaint. One supportive comment indicated that such a platform could improve interpreting quality by providing an easy way to identify interpreters that need greater support for skills improvement.

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing

Comments from DDBHH Consumers expressed multiple concerns around the challenges of website moderation, consistency, and transparency, indicating that unfair or unreliable reviews may reduce interpreting availability by driving interpreters away from the field, and negatively impact consumer choice if positive reviews are characterized by a consumer’s positive interaction experience rather than the quality of interpreting skills. Comments also indicated that it is unclear how a ratings website would address the concern of improving interpreting quality.

System Stakeholder

Comments from System stakeholders reflect concerns about reviewer accountability and the mechanisms that would limit assigning lower-rated interpreters to job requests.