The translation procedures in iLSA commissioned by the OECD have evolved over the years and are built on experiences from previous studies (OECD, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013b, 2014, 2017).
By introducing recommended translator qualifications and the step "verification" into iLSA, significant progress has been made over earlier approaches (e.g., back translation).
In 2016, 20 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with translators, project managers, and reviewers with the goal of learning how translators compare translating for iLSA with other translation jobs they receive--and ultimately how these players perceive their work (also see Upsing, 2017).
Of the 20 interviewees, 13 had experience with roles other than their "main role"; 12 interviewees identified themselves as professional translators, and four (B01, B02, B15, B16) had no experience with iLSA, but were included due to their experience as professional translators within large-scale translation processes.
All interviewees with experience with iLSA have either worked for PISA and/or PIAAC.
--Does this setup differ from the feedback you receive for iLSA translation?
--Does this setup differ from information exchange in iLSA projects?
Only one interviewed translator reported that she had translated for more than two iLSA studies.
In the case of iLSA, Interviewee B20 explained that translators are not necessarily informed about corrections and changes in their translations.
Given the exploratory and qualitative nature of the interview study, the commonalities and main themes should be considered as starting points for discussion, not as final conclusions relating to practices common to iLSA translations.
The interviews indicated that in iLSA, translators may not receive sufficient information throughout the process to make confident translation decisions.
the developers of iLSA studies] are somewhat sceptical about translators and their work" (Bolanos-Medina & Gonzalez-Ruiz, 2012, p.