Translation and Interpreting Assessment Schemes: NAATI Versus CATTI

  • Leong KoEmail author
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)


Both Australia and China have dynamic and growing translation and interpreting markets, well-established translation and interpreting professions and national translation and interpreting assessment schemes that provide accreditation to qualified translators and interpreters in order to ensure the quality of translators and interpreters entering the market. Their national assessment schemes, the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) tests in Australia and the China Accreditation Test for Translators and Interpreters (CATTI) exhibit many similarities in terms of qualification designs, assessment structures, assessment items and assessment criteria, but at the same time also have their own unique features. This chapter is designed to discuss various aspects of NAATI and CATTI. It provides an overview of the translation and interpreting markets in Australia and China and the development of the NAATI and CATTI tests, including recent developments where relevant; a comparison of their assessment structures, assessment items and assessment criteria and pathways to NAATI and CATTI qualifications, respectively; and finally the implications of the two assessment schemes from the perspective of the translation and interpreting market.


NAATI CATTI Accreditation Certification Rubric 


  1. AIIC. (2019). Code of professional ethics. Version 2018. Accessed May 5, 2019.
  2. American Translators Association (ATA). (2019). American translators association code of ethics and professional practice. Accessed May 5, 2019.
  3. AUSIT. (2019a). History of AUSIT. Accessed 17 April 2019.
  4. AUSIT. (2019b). AUSIT code of ethics and code of conduct. Accessed April 17, 2019.
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016a). Australian census. Accessed May 5, 2016.
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016b). Cultural diversity. May 5, 2019.
  7. CATTI. (2019a). 考试样题 (Test Samples). Accessed 19 April 2019.
  8. CATTI. (2019b). 考试大纲 (Test syllabus). Accessed May 1, 2019.
  9. CATTI. (2019c). 2018年下半年全国翻译资格考试顺利结束 (Successful completion of CATTI tests in the later half of 2018). Accessed May 5, 2019.
  10. China Tourist Hotel Association. (2018). 《2017年中国会议统计分析报告》(Statistical Analysis Report of Conferences in China 2017). In Xinhuanet. Accessed April 17, 2019.
  11. Feng, J. Z. (2017). CATTI考试体系中的翻译职业道德意识问题 (Issues concerning code of conduct of translation and interpreting in CATTI’s test scheme). Foreign Languages Research, No 1, 101, 53–55.Google Scholar
  12. Gentile, et al. (1996). Liaison interpreting—A handbook. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly, N. (2008). Telephone interpreting: A comprehensive guide to the profession, Trafford Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Ko, L. (2006a). Teaching interpreting by distance mode: Possibilities and constraints. Interpreting, 8(1), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ko, L. (2006b). A critical analysis of the NAATI interpreter test in Australia. Translation Watch Quarterly 9–27.Google Scholar
  17. Ko, L. (2006c). Fine-tuning the code of ethics for interpreters and translators. Translation Watch Quarterly, 2(3), 45–57.Google Scholar
  18. Ko, L. (2006d). The need for long-term empirical studies in remote interpreting research: A case study of telephone interpreting. In Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 5 (2006) ‘taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting (pp. 325–338).Google Scholar
  19. Ko, L. (2011). Translation checking: A view from the translation market. Perspectives Studies in Translatology, 19(2), 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ko, L. (2018). Community translation in the Australian context. In M. Taibi (Ed.), Translating for the community (pp. 132–149). Bristol and Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, J. (2007). Telephone interpreting-seen from the interpreters’ perspective. Interpreting, 9(2), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MAJIT. (2017). Handbook. The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  23. Mei, D. (2017). 英语口译实务 (三级) (English Interpreting Practice) (Level 3). Beijing: Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mikkelson, H. (2000/01). Interpreter ethics: A review of the traditional and electronic literature. Interpreting 5(1), 49–56.Google Scholar
  25. NAATI. (2002). Manual for candidates (19th ed.). Canberra: NAATI.Google Scholar
  26. NAATI. (2005). NAATI examiners’ manual, 2005 edition (unpublished).Google Scholar
  27. NAATI. (2008). NAATI examiners’ manual, 2008 edition (unpublished).Google Scholar
  28. NAATI. (2015). NAATI accreditation by testing—Information booklet. Version 3.5, December 2015. NAATI, Canberra.Google Scholar
  29. NAATI. (2016). Revalidation information booklet. Version 1.4, February 2016. NAATI, Canberra.Google Scholar
  30. NAATI. (2017). Annual Report 2016/17. Accessed 14 march 2020.
  31. NAATI. (2019a). CLA testing. Accessed May 10, 2019.
  32. NAATI. (2019b). Recognised practising. Accessed 10 May 2019.
  33. NAATI. (2019c). NAATI certification model. Accessed May 10, 2019.
  34. NAATI. (2019d). Recertification. Accessed 20 April 2019.
  35. NAATI. (2019e). Training. Accessed 20 April 2019.
  36. NAATI. (2019f). Certification prerequisites. Accessed April 20, 2019.
  37. NAATI. (2019g). Certification testing. Accessed June 2, 2019.
  38. NAATI. (2019h). Certified translator. Accessed April 20, 2019.
  39. NAATI. (2020a). Descriptors for Interpreting, version 1.2—Sept 2019. Access 14 March 2020.
  40. NAATI. (2020b). NAATI News March 2020. Accessed 14 March 2020.
  41. NAATI. (2020c). Certified specialist health interpreter. Accessed 6 April 2020.
  42. NAATI. (2020d). Certified specialist legal interpreter. Accessed April 6, 2020.
  43. Niska. H. (Coord.). (1999). Quality issues in remote interpreting. In A. A. Lugris & A. F. Ocampo (Eds.), Anovar/anosar estudios de tranduccion e interpretacion (vol. i, Servicio de Publicacion da Universidade de Vigo, pp. 109–121).Google Scholar
  44. Ozolins, U. (2011). Telephone interpreting: Understanding practice and identifying research needs. Translation and Interpreting, 3(2), 33–47.Google Scholar
  45. Pointon, T., et al. (1998). TIS in Europe 1976–2001: determining the origins, size, nature and outlook of telephone interpreting services in Europe. Pointon Partnership: England and Deakin University, Australia.Google Scholar
  46. Song, Z. & Fang, J. (2017). Translation assessment in China and Australia: Gaps and prospects. In C. Shei, Z. Gao (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Chinese translation (pp. 58–80). Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Tebble, H. (2012). Interpreting or interfering? In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting (pp. 23–44). Amsterdame/Phladelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wadensjö, C. (1998/2014). Interpreting as interaction. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations