A Preliminary Guide to Comprehension Checking
Rountree, Catherine. “A Preliminary Guide to Comprehension Checking,” Notes on Translation 1, no. 101 (June, 1984): 3–14.

 (Copyright SIL; use only for personal study purposes; get permission for other distribution)

Catherine Rountree
Catherine Rountree has a B.A. in Bible from Columbia Bible College. She joined SIL in 1966 and since 1968 has worked as a linguist-translator, along with Naomi Glock, for the Saramaccan language project in Suriname. The New Testament is sixty percent translated. Catherine has served as a translation consultant since 1972, and has been training national translators since 1978. In the branch she serves as translation coordinator and Technical Studies Department Head. She has also taught translation at the Norman SIL
Body
Introduction
According to Webster, “to comprehend” means “to grasp the meaning of, to understand”. Therefore, comprehension checking of translation refers to testing a translation to determine if the hearers or readers grasp its meaning. This is not merely a formality tacked on the end of the translation process. If it is done correctly, comprehension checking accounts for at least fifty percent of the time spent in the translation process prior to the final consultant check.
The placement of comprehension checking in the translation process
The translator's first step is to study the Source Language materials to determine the original message. When he is able to state that message in his own words (in his own language), he is ready to start a first draft of the translation. He should be able to explain to a mother-tongue speaker of the Receptor Language what he wants to say, and, after discussion, the mother-tongue speaker decides how to say it in the Receptor Language. When necessary, the translator may have to write his own rough draft and take that to the mother-tongue speaker for discussion and improvements. The resulting revised version then becomes the first draft and is ready for comprehension checking.
The translator's next step is to formulate questions for this check. Details on these questions will be given later.
Prerequisites to comprehension checking
Before the translator begins his comprehension check, he needs to get himself in the proper frame of mind . He should approach his language assistant with the attitude of, “Here is the first draft, where does it need improving?” rather than “Here is the translation, surely it's ok, isn't it?” Unless the translator has a teachable rather than defensive attitude, the checking will be of dubious worth. His purpose must be to improve his translation, not get it “rubber stamped”.
Basic to all interaction with language assistants, but especially to comprehension checking, is the ability to listen The translator needs patience and a genuine desire to really hear what the language assistant has to say. He must listen actively, not passively, so as to understand the implications of what is said. In this way he can pick up on points to discuss further, catch hints of spots that might be troubling the language assistant, and note options that are better stated. Some people seem to do this naturally, others do not. If it is not already a habit of the translator, he must work at training himself to be a good listener in order to be a good communicator. He must be an effective communicator if he wants to be a successful translator.
Another prerequisite for comprehension checking is scheduling sufficient time The translator must not plan too little time for the check and then be tempted to work hastily or superficially in order to meet some deadline (e.g. an appointment to get the materials checked, or school, family, or furlough schedules).
Types of comprehension checking
Comprehension checking is usually thought of as asking a lot of questions. That is, of course, one method of checking, but there are others. For example, the language assistant may be requested to read or listen to and explain various portions of the translation ranging from words to passages. Or he might be requested to read through the materials and comment. The method or methods chosen will depend on several factors, such as the language assistant, the receptor culture, the preference of the translator, and the nature of the materials to be checked.
Preparation of questions
Whatever the method chosen, before the translator goes to his language assistant, he should formulate the questions he may need to ask. There are a number of reasons for this. First, it gives him time to think through what he expects the language assistant to understand from the translation, as well as to determine the other points he needs to check with him. It also gives him time to work out, with a speaker of the receptor language, the form of the questions needed to obtain that information. Then, during the checking sessions when both language assistant and translator get side-tracked, the translator can always go back to the questions and get them back on course. When the questions are written out, the translator will begin to notice which questions are good questions and which are not. He will also begin to zero in on those spots in the text which seem impossible to check with questions. These steps are vital in his working out an efficient checking technique.
He may find it helpful to have these questions on a sheet of paper in a matrix arrangement with columns for answers and comments. When I kept such a record for Colossians, marking the “correct”, “wrong”, and questionable answers, I began to learn to evaluate the questions I was asking, the kinds of answers I was getting as well as problems in the translation. It is an especially good idea to keep a written record if the translator is about to leave the project for a while, as when he goes on furlough.
As the translator begins to work with the first language assistant, it is helpful, especially if he is new, to give him a demonstration showing just what is expected. The translator should help him with this demonstration using a language which all three understand.
Types of questions
Questions are divided into four types: Genre, Overview, Theme, and Detail.
Genre :
These are the questions concerning the style of the translation. The translator is trying to determine if the language assistant thinks the story is appropriately and skillfully told. The following types of questions can be asked
•	What kind of talk is this? story? instructions? scolding? advice?
•	Was the person who told this story young or old? man or woman?
•	Do you think he tells stories very often?
•	Do you think he was talking to children or adults? men or women? believers or unbelievers?
•	Do you think he was in a hurry? why?
Some possible answers to these questions are:
•	“I think an old person told it because a young person would not use this vocabulary.”
•	“I think he was talking to children because the vocabulary is so simple.”
•	“I think he was in a hurry because he just gives the facts one after the other without any padding.”
The last comment was made by a language assistant concerning the Creation Story in Suriname Javanese. He compared it with the story of Cain and Abel, commenting that the latter had more detail, was easier to read, and was more interesting, chiefly because a large part of it was direct speech. This gave a great deal of information about these stories in particular and what he thought of the stories in general.
These questions may be asked first, when the language assistant has read or heard the story once or twice, or they may be held until the last. It is probably better to ask them last so that he has had time to relax, get more involved in the discussion, and decide what he thinks about the material.
Overview
The purpose of this second set of questions is to determine if the language assistant understands the correct, overall picture. In narratives, the translator wants to know if the main events are in focus and in hortatory materials, if the point of the passage is clear. The procedure is to read the passage to the language assistant once or twice. Often it helps to have him translate it sentence-by-sentence back into a second language they both know. In this way, the language assistant fixes the main events or points in his mind. Then the translator may ask him to tell back in his own words as much as he remembers. The hope is that he will give back the high points of the story.
While the language assistant is doing this, it is very important that the translator not interrupt him. Rather, he should jot down notes on what is said, or record it on a tape recorder to refer back to later. He should not break the language assistant's train of thought. Certainly he should never correct him. That might result in an argument or, more likely, the language assistant could be intimidated and, therefore, not too helpful. Either way, the translator defeats his purpose, because he will not be able to get into the relaxed discussion necessary for improving the translation.
It is true that the linguistic features of a language highlight themes by pushing certain parts into the background while putting others into focus. When the language assistant retells a passage in his own words, hopefully, he will recall those points which have been brought into focus by the language. However, it is also true that people tend to ignore things they do not understand and pay special attention to those that interest them. As a result, they sometimes leave out parts of a passage that have been highlighted by the language because they did not understand them. At other times, they emphasize points which were not especially in focus simply because they were of great interest to them. This must be kept in mind when evaluating their answers. Generally, however, the translator will get a fairly good idea of what the language assistant is hearing, for whatever reason.
At this point the translator should not do anything about what the language assistant tells him except to note it.
Theme
These are the questions that focus on the high points of a story or argument. Their purpose is to guide the discussion through the passage without getting caught up yet in details. It may not be necessary to ask any of the questions if the language assistant has given a thorough review of the passage in answer to the overview questions. They should not include any detail questions such as the meaning of certain words or phrases nor any implication questions except those necessary to the point of the passage. Implication questions will be discussed later.
Example of a set of theme questions: The Tower of Babel.
1.	From this story, what can you tell me about the language situation long ago?
2.	Where did the people live?
3.	What were their plans?
4.	Why did they want to do that?
5.	What can you tell me about the city what did it look like?
6.	What did God think about it?
7.	What did he do?
8.	What happened to the people?
9.	What became of the city?
10.	What else does it say about the city?
11.	Why was it named Babel?
12.	Why didn't God want them to build the city?
 ‡ 
Notes on the questions

1.	It is generally known that yes/no questions are a “no-no” for effective comprehension checking. It is too easy for the language assistant to guess at the answer with a fifty percent chance of being correct. An exception here may be the use of yes/no questions as lead questions. An example here from the Tower of Babel above would be: “Did God approve of their plans?” If the language assistant answers “no”, then ask, “Why not?” But even here what does the translator do when he gets “Yes” for an answer?
It is obvious that questions such as, “Is this clear?” or “Is this your language?” are more or less worthless for getting helpful information. They seem more like appeals for “rubber stamp” approval. The what, why, how, who questions such as those above are much more productive.
2.	There should not be too many questions asked of the same language assistant. If the translator needs to do extensive checking of a passage, he would do well to divide the questions between two or more language assistants (at different times). Both language assistants and translators get tired and restless when they have to keep going over the same materials for too long a time.
3.	“Cross-examining” is another pitfall. For a short example in a translation of the Creation Story in Suriname Javanese, there was a line that said “and after that God created the plants”. The translator might ask:

a.	After that, what happened?
b.	God did what?
c.	What did God make?

This sort of questioning that asks for answers which have already been partially or indirectly given is tiring and confusing to the language assistant.
4.	The questions should not give away any more information than necessary. For example, in this same Creation Story, the translator could ask: “What did God make next?” or, “And then what happened?” The first question gives the information that God made something the second does not.
5.	The answers to the questions should not be too obvious. If they are, the language assistant tends to think that the translator could not possibly be asking anything that obvious so he will try to think past the obvious answer and give another, which is likely to be wrong. He may just say he doesn't know. Or he might feel he is being talked “down” to, being treated like a child and become offended.
6.	If the language assistant has answered the question once, don't ask him again. For example, if he mentions something in an answer to an overview question and is asked again, he is likely to give a wrong answer the second time. He has given that information once, and when asked again, he becomes confused, thinking he must have given the wrong answer the first time. For instance, while checking the story of the Tower of Babel in Suriname Javanese, the language assistant, giving the story back in his own words, said that God decided to stop the work because if they were able to do this much now, what would they do later. When the translator later asked why God confused their language, the language assistant did not give a clear answer. He had already answered that question in different words.
7.	There should not be too much questioning about names. In the first place, names are very hard to remember, especially strange names. (Just try remembering the names in their stories!) If the translator spends a lot of time getting the language assistant to remember them by asking too many questions, he gives the idea that the names are more important to the story than they actually are. For example, when Jesus was leaving Jericho, he healed a blind man. Where this took place is minor information in the story. The following exchange could take place: “Where was Jesus going?” “What was the name of the city?” (The language assistant can't remember, so the translator reads it again.) “Now what was it?” (The language assistant can't pronounce it, so the translator helps him.) Finally, the language assistant says it correctly and they move on to the next point. Meanwhile, the language assistant has been given the impression that the name of the city is very important.
A second problem with names may be too much interest in them. Once the language assistant hears the name, he becomes so engrossed with it that he can't answer the simplest questions about the passage. For example, a discussion of the sentence, “Herod was the king of Galilee”, might be as follows: “Who was Herod?” (The language assistant doesn't know. The translator reads it again. The assistant still doesn't know and asks the translator to repeat the name. He likes the name and decides that when he has another child he is going to call him “Helodisi”. He repeats it several times and practices calling his envisioned offspring. Finally, he asks the translator to write it on a piece of paper for him.) By this time, both the translator and the language assistant have lost track of the story.
Implication questions
Since the purpose of Theme questions is to determine if the main points of the passage come across clearly as the main points in the translation, sometimes implication questions are included and sometimes not. At this point, perhaps the translator only needs to determine if the language assistant understands the superficial meaning of the passage but not necessarily its implications. For example, the passage in Luke four concerning the Lord being rejected at Nazareth says he read and spoke to the people. At first they were impressed, then they said, “Isn't this Joseph's son?” The Lord answered them with proverbs and then stories about Elijah and Elisha. The Theme questions are designed to determine if the language assistant understands the superficial meaning of the proverbs and stories. Later, the translator will go back and see if he understands the implications of these proverbs and stories, i.e. why did Jesus tell them and why were the people so angry?
An example of an implication question that would be included in the Theme questions is from the passage in Matthew three. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and calls them a “generation of vipers”. The implications of that name need to be understood, at least to some extent, if the rest of the passage is to be clear.
Notes on the answers
Theme questions are only take-off questions. As the checking proceeds, many other questions will follow, based on the Theme questions and the language assistant's answers. As long as the answers to the first questions are correct, there is no problem, but what happens when the answers are wrong? Why did the language assistant not give the correct answer? Where is the problem? How does the translator find out? There are many possible causes for wrong answers. Some possibilities are as follows:
1.	The language assistant may be new and not understand this kind of “interrogation”. It may be culturally strange or even unacceptable. If it is unacceptable, some other method will have to be used. But if it is only new or strange, the language assistant can be trained. A demonstration at the beginning will be helpful. Then, if the translator is patient, little-by-little, through working together, the language assistant will learn what is expected of him. Frequently, people who don't seem to be helpful at first turn out to be the most capable language assistants.
2.	Wrong answers may come from wrong questions. Occasionally, only the question word is wrong. For example, they might say “what” in places where we would ask “who”. More often, the whole question is wrong. The translator knows the information he is seeking and has formulated his question, but the receptor language would not use such a question. For example, Colossians 3:4 says: “When Christ who is our life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory.” The Saramaccan translation says: “When Christ comes back to earth to receive his fame/renown, then you yourselves will be included....” The translator's original question here was: “Why is Christ coming back to earth?” The desired answer was: “to receive his glory”, but a different answer was given. The question was changed to: “When the Lord comes back to earth, what is going to happen?” This was answered correctly.
3.	Sometimes the language assistant does not listen or can't remember the answer. But he feels compelled to give an answer, and since he doesn't want to confess that he was not listening, or can't remember, he just answers the first thing that comes to his mind. Often, when the passage is read to him again, he is able to answer correctly.
4.	Some answers may seem to be wrong at first, but turn out to be correct even though answered indirectly. The older women among the Saramaccans of Suriname frequently give little stories in response to one just read to them. At first the translators thought the women were not listening, but finally realized that they were giving an illustration of the principles in the passage they had just heard. An example from another occasion, in checking the passage in the Christmas Story of the angel's announcement to Mary of Jesus' birth, the question was asked: “Can you explain how the Holy Spirit will cause Mary to become pregnant?” The answer given was: “God makes all people.” When asked for further explanation, the language assistant replied: “He will create this child just like he creates everyone else, only this time without the help of a human father.” Though his first answer was vague, his explanation showed that he had understood the passage correctly.
5.	Sometimes answers seem wrong because the language assistant has rearranged the information when giving the passage back in his own words. For example, the Carib language assistant, giving the Christmas Story back in her own words, mentioned near the beginning of the story that the wise men know Herod wanted to kill the child. It seemed that the translation was saying that the wise men knew Herod's plan while they were talking to him. Further questioning proved that this was not the case, the translation was correct; the language assistant had just retold the story out of chronological order, putting information given at the end of the story near the beginning.
6.	Sometimes the language assistant cannot understand the concepts of the Scriptures simply because they are so new and strange. This is especially true if he is not a believer. For example, Colossians 1:12 says: “Giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints....” The Saramaccan translation says: “And just the same, you must give thanks, for He has made it possible for you to obtain the good He has to give to His people.” The comprehension question was: “What are the good things God has to give us?” or “What do you think the good things are that God has to give to us?” An unbeliever will most likely name material blessings. He cannot really be expected to know about “righteousness”, “a new heart”, “being made into a new creature”, “joy”, and other such spiritual blessings.
7.	Language assistants, like everyone else, interpret everything on the basis of their own world view. People read between the lines of what they hear and see and have their own opinions about what is behind it all. Working with the Saramaccans, we had quite an “eye opener” when the language assistant gave his commentary on the Bible stories he had just been helping to translate. He had no doubts about why Rachal could have no children. Her sister had naturally used black magic on her because she was the favorite wife. There was nothing in the translation to indicate this, he was simply judging from his own life experiences. In this case, it did not make any difference in the translation, but in some cases, it might. For example, when being told the story of the Fall, a Saramaccan lady listening to the account, kept waiting for a certain bit of information that she expected. At the end, when she had not heard it, she began to hint about it, asking: “Why did God send them from the Garden?” The answer, “Because they disobeyed God”, did not satisfy her. She asked again, “What did they do?” The translator repeated the part about the fruit, but she was still not satisfied. Both the translator and the lady were confused. The lady's problem was that it is a very common belief among the Saramaccans (and others) that the sin of Adam and Eve was sexual intercourse. The language assistant was waiting for this explanation. In this case, the translator needs to recheck the translation. The point must be clear that Adam and Eve disobeyed by eating the fruit.
8.	Since the language assistants answer from their own viewpoint, the translator must br quite familiar with the views of the receptor culture. He needs to spend much time with them, observing and listening to them. Otherwise, he will not be able to adequately evaluate their answers to his comprehension questions or their comments on the translation.
9.	Occasionally, language assistants give wrong answers, not because they do not understand certain concepts, but because they do not accept them. Answers may come back as “corrections” to what has been heard. In these cases, if further discussion proves that they do indeed understand, the translation is not changed, of course.
These are only some of the possible causes for wrong answers to comprehension questions. The translator must be constantly listening and evaluating what the language assistant is saying. He must be looking for hints of a lack of understanding or a labored understanding. Hesitations, side comments, difficulty in reading—all point to possible trouble spots, e.g. unnaturalness, difficult sentence structure, inadequate orthography, punctuation.
However, most of the time, wrong answers indicate wrong translation. It could be in the immediate context (some word, phrase, grammar, idioms, connectors), or it could be some implications from the remote context. When the language assistant gives a wrong answer, the translator should reread the passage to him and at least go through a mental checklist of possible causes. If he cannot determine the cause of the problem, he can ask for an explanation of each sentence, and discuss the meaning of suspect or even nonsuspect words and phrases. If he can get the language assistant into a discussion of the passage, sooner or later, the problem becomes clear. As a last resort, he could explain to the language assistant what he would like to say, and ask how he should say it.
Detail
This category includes details about words, phrases and implications that the translator does not want to ask while he is concentrating on the main points of the passage. If he asks details earlier, he is likely to get involved in extensive discussions that cause both the translator and the language assistant to lose track of the main points.
An example of a “detail” implication is how the language assistant interprets a symbolic action such as why the High Priest tore his clothes when Christ claimed to be God (Matthew 26:65).
Sometimes the translator might want to ask about things that are not in the text just to hear the language assistant's ideas. For example, he might ask: “Why do you think God didn't accept Cain's offering?” In the story of the Fall, he might ask further questions about the snake. “Why do you think the snake was able to talk?” “Why did it want to deceive Eve?” “Do you think it was really a snake?” “In what way was the snake different from the other animals?” Answers to these questions may give the translator many insights into the world view of the receptor culture.
While asking detail questions, the translator's purpose is to engage the language assistant in a discussion. The assistant begins to relax and tell the translator what he thinks of things. This is especially so if he senses that the translator sincerely wants to know what he thinks and is looking to him for help.
If the language assistant asks the translator a question, the translator should turn it back to the language assistant. For example, while checking out the story of Cain and Abel, the assistant asked the translator: “What ground was cursed, all of it or just the spot where the blood fell?” Instead of telling him, the translator asked: “What do you think from what is written there?” This gave the translator opportunity to evaluate the ambiguity of the translation. Later he told the assistant the answer.
It is very difficult for the translator to refrain from giving his language assistants a Bible study on each verse. But this would defeat his purpose if done during comprehension checking. At this point, he should tell the language assistant no more than he has to. After all, he wants to find out what the assistant understands from the translation without explanation. The time for Bible studies is after the check.
At the end of the comprehension check, the translator should give the language assistant a chance for any comments or questions. The translator should encourage him to go back over the translation closely and give as much commentary as he cares to. The language assistant may point out spots that are hard to understand or words that are not the best for the context. This type of evaluation of the translation by the language assistant is an excellent check of the translation, but it is not likely to happen unless he is at ease and convinced that the translator really wants and needs his help.
Miscellaneous Notes
1.	The translator must be sure to check all connectors such as “because”, “therefore”, “for that reason”. If the language assistant is literate, he may be able to circle the connector in question and ask: “Why is this here?” If the language assistant is not literate, the translator will have to formulate questions. This could take considerable time in thought and experimenting, but the results will be worth it. Examples of some possible questions are as follows:
Text: “I came because he called me.”Question: “Why did he come?” or “Why does it say ‘because’ here and not ‘since’?”
2.	In checking figures of speech, proverbs, and quotes, the translator might ask: “Why did he say that?” or “Why is he talking about ____ ?” For example, in the figure of “throwing pearls before swine”, the translator might ask: “Why is he talking about pigs and dogs?” Another example is from the passage in Luke four when the Lord tells those in the synagogue about Elijah and Elisha. Here, the translator might ask: “Why is he talking about Elijah and Elisha?” The answers will make clear whether or not the language assistants are making the intended analogies.
3.	In checking questions to determine if they are taken as real or rhetorical, the translator might ask: “Why did he ask that, didn't he know?” For example, in the story of Cain and Abel when God asked Cain where his brother was, the translator could ask: “Why did he ask, didn't God know where he was?” If the language assistant does not take it for a real question, he might answer: “Oh yes, he knew, it is just a way of talking.” Or he might laugh or otherwise show that he does not perceive it as a real question.
4.	In check for naturalness, a good question is: “When would you say that?” The answer might be a context in which this expression or sentence would be used. Or the language assistant might say they would never say that, proving that the translation is indeed unnatural at that point.
5.	Frequently, the translator can think of no question to check a certain passage. In that case, he might just read the passage to the language assistant and ask: “Can you explain that sentence or phrase to me?” or “Can you say this in different words?”

Summary
Comprehension checks are a crucial part of the translation process. In doing these checks, the first thing the translator has to consider is that his mind is set with the attitude that this draft is not the final one and his purpose is not to get an “ok”, but to improve the translation. Then he needs to formulate his questions, first in his own language, and then in the receptor language. When he meets with the language assistant, his first questions (or his last) will be Genre Questions, what kind of story it is, is it well-told, and other such questions about the style. Then come the Overview questions to determine if the themes are clearly understood and if the language assistant is getting the point of the story. Next are the Theme questions to trace the thread of the theme through the passage. The language assistant may have answered all of these questions in giving the story back in his own words, but if he has not, these questions fill in the gaps. Finally, the translator asks the Detail questions. After all the questions, the language assistant is encouraged to give any further comments of his own. At least be clear, therefore, that careful attention to all aspects of comprehension checks should greatly benefit the resulting translation.
Back
Bibliography
Adams, Patsy“Translation Polishing With Semi-Literates.1969Notes On Translation 33. .
Anderson, Richard. “Tape Recorders and Translation. 1965 Notes On Translation 16
Barnwell, Katharine. Testing the Translation (Abstract). 1981 Notes On Translation 84.
Beekman, John. General Procedure for Bible Translation Among Aboriginals. 1965 Notes On Translation with Drills
Bendor–Samuel, P. Quality Control—with Special Reference to Testing the Manuscript (Abstract). 1981 Notes on Translation 84.
Borman, M. B. Informal Comprehension Checking. 1980 Notes on Translation 79.
Bunkowske, Eugene W Reviewers. 1983  Notes on Translation 95.
Crofts, Marjorie. Checking Translation for Discourse Features. 1976 Notes on Translation 59.
Crofts, Marjorie  Introduction to Question Words in Palikur. 1975 Notes on Translation 55.
Crofts, Marjorie. Some Thoughts on Questions.1980  Notes on Translation 79.
Deibler, Ellis W. National Involvement and Translation Checking. 1978 Notes on Translation 71.
Elkins, Richard E. Reducing Decoding Error in Translation. Notes on Translation 40.
Farnsworth, Robin. Speeded –Up Translation Checking. 1977 Notes on Translation 67.
Gordon, Kent.1977. Summary of Discussion with Roger Shuy. (In Notes on Translation General Comments and Questions by John Beekman.)
Green, Harold and  Question Words in Palikur or Why Do I Get Dumb Answers ? 1975 NOT 55
Hainsworth, John and Johnson, Kay  Checking Intelligibility and Accuracy of Translations.1974 Notes on Translation 51.
Headland, Edna. Questions as a Checking Device for Translations. 1981 Notes on Translation 83.
Headland, Thomas. A Method for Recording Formal Elicitation. 1973 Notes on Translation 50.
Hohulin, Richard M. Questioning our Questioning Technique. 1982 Notes on Translation 91.
Hollenbach, Barbara E. Some Limitations of the Question Technique. 1970  Notes on Translation 36.
Johnston, Clay. A Breakthrough in Translation Checking and a Step Toward Objective. 1980 Notes on Translation 78.
Kroeker, Menno. Response of the Translation Helper to Direct Questions.1976 Notes on Translation 60.
Lithgow, David. What to Ask in Translation Checking. 1971 Notes on Translation 42.
Moore, Bruce R. The Ideal and Reality in Checking the Quality of a Translation, and a Credibility Scale for Translation Checking. 1980 Notes on Translation 79.
Moore, Bruce. What is a Passing Grade on a Comprehension Test? (Abstract). 1982  Notes on Translation 90.
Nida, Eugene A.1947  Bible Translating New York:  American Bible Society. pp. 74–87.
Nida, Eugene A.1964. Toward a Science of Translating Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 140–144.
Ott, Willis. Self–Checks on Translation. 1980 Notes on Translation 79.
Pallesen, Kemp. More on Elicitation. 1970 Notes on Translation 36.
Parlier, James. To Help Speed the Way. 1974 Notes on Translation 53.
Perrin, Mona. Reviewers’ Course, Some Outline Notes. 1983 Notes on Translation 95.
Richert, Ernest L. Native Reaction as a Guide to Meaningful Translation. 1965  Notes on Translation with Drills
Rountree, Catherine. What is that name again? 1976 Notes on Translation 59.
Ruch, Edward. Using Naive Translation Helpers. 1976 Notes on Translation 62.
Schauer, Stan. Checking Through a Written Paraphrase. 1980 Notes on Translation 78.
Shand, Jean. Checking Translation in Sunday School. 1972 Notes on Translation 46.
Sims, R. J. Use of Paraphrasing in Checking (Abstract). 1981 Notes on Translation 84.
Strange, David. An Experiment in Checking Themes. 1980 Notes on Translation 78.
Tuggy, John. Test My Own Translation? 1980 Notes on Translation 81.
Waltz, Nate. The Importance of Asking Questions. Notes on Translation 75.
Waltz, Nate. Written Comprehension Checks. 1981 Notes on Translation 83.
Wells, Margaret and Mathieson, Margaret Using Cassettes in Final Checks. 1975 Notes on Translation 55.
Williams, Kenneth L. Checking Translations for Wrong Meaning. 1965 Notes on Translation with Drills