Evaluating Emotional Stability as a Predictor of Chinese MTI Students' Interpreter Aptitude

Evaluating Emotional Stability as a Predictor of Chinese MTI Students' Interpreter Aptitude

Jiang Fengxia (Beijing Foreign Studies University, China)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0159-6.ch035
OnDemand PDF Download:
$37.50

Abstract

It is necessary to find an effective way of testing interpreters' aptitude so as to enhance the efficiency in deciding his or her potential interpretation talents. This chapter proposes that variance in interpreter performance is dependent on factors of both general cognitive ability and personality. It reports on a study of 110 Chinese MTI students in the hope of finding out what traits play the most important role and to what extent these variables impact on learning and achievement. Psychological constructs of self-efficacy, goal orientation, and negative affectivity were measured, as were interpreter ratings of self-perceived competence as practitioners. The most significant finding revealed the dimension of emotional stability (represented on the negative end of the continuum by traits of anxiety and neuroticism, and measured in this study by the negative affectivity scale) as a predictor of interpreters' self-perceived competence. Based on these findings, recommendations for admission testing and interpreter education curricula are discussed.
Chapter Preview
Top

Background

In recent years it has been more widely accepted that both personality factors and general cognitive ability influence performance — in the classroom and in the workplace. Such individual differences are further influenced by environmental and social factors, such as learning conditions. It needs to be stated that the primacy of general cognitive ability as a predictor of occupational performance remains largely undisputed, despite gains in the field of personality studies (Ree & Earles 1992; Ree et al. 1994; Schmidt & Hunter 1998). Essentially this means there is typically a complementary fit between a person’s intellectual resources and the cognitive demands of their chosen occupation.

However, accounting for at least some of the variance in occupational performance amongst individuals, the research published in recent years demonstrates a convincing relationship between personality and performance as well (Barrick & Mount 2005; Barrick et al. 2001). Although personality may be only a small part of the bigger picture, Ones et al. (2007) suggest that personality constructs may account for specific attitudes, behaviors and performance in an occupational context. Notably, the role of personality in successful completion of courses of study (Phillips et al. 2003); skill acquisition (Oakes et al. 2001); job performance (Judge et al. 1999); and career success (Bozionelos 2004) should not be underestimated. An individual’s preferences and desires evidently influence his/her person vocation fit (Reeve & Heggestad 2004), and “adaptability, positive relationships, openness to experiences, and social and psychological capital” (Fouad 2007: 556) impact on career exploration. Ultimately, individual personality differences do relate to outcomes at work.

Furthermore, it is now understood that the actual relationship between general cognitive ability and personality is negligible. There may be a very bright individual who is lazy, anxious, insecure and unmotivated, which potentially impacts on job performance and productivity. Similarly, there may be a very responsible, goal oriented, secure and careful individual who may lack the general cognitive ability required for a particular job, even if apparently suited in temperament. It appears personality is a poor predictor of general cognitive ability, and that tests of cognitive ability should be interpreted separately from personality tests administered to individuals, with limited inferences made between the constructs. This reinforces the view that attention needs to be paid to both general cognitive ability and personality factors in any recruitment and selection process in an occupational context (Judge et al. 1999).

Barrick and Mount (2005) describe the cognitive factors affecting job performance as the “can do” factors — an individual needs a requisite level of general cognitive ability, to perform the tasks inherent in the job. Personality however may be described as the “will do” factor — will the person be dependable, motivated, confident and goal-oriented enough to apply their individual capabilities towards effectively performing the tasks of the job? In essence, and quite logically, performance is predicated on both ability/capacity and motivation/willingness factors.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset