Due to the subjective nature of assessment in the field of translation, it is difficult to reach a consensus on a single model of the translation assessment; but at the same time, the need for evaluation of translation is stronger than ever in many countries and there are many approaches of the evaluation of the translation at present. In this paper, we categorize and examine with a critical reflection the models of the assessment of translation, according to whether they are micro or macro structures of strategies, based on the categorization of House (1997). Then we analyze the current problems related to different approaches. Finally our discussions will present an outline of our recommendations that could solve these problems. The results show that the models of micro structural level, defining a rather quantitative absolute and linguistic assessment of the translation may be used as basis for the assessment of the macro-structural level but unable to evaluate the errors of the translation in the level of the full text or discourse, they must be completed. The models of macro-structural level defines a more qualitative and relative assessment of translation. They consider the meaning of the entire text. However, all models of macro-structural level do not specify concretely how to conclude the overall quality of a translation. They do not justify all criteria or standards stated by not relying on enough examples of practical analysis of translations. Therefore, to obtain a less subjective and more applicable assessment in the real cases, each model should turn to a systematic evaluation based on verification of the facts, with clear and concrete criteria and standards to be defined by empirical approaches using the act of communication and analyzing the distribution of roles of the different actors in the assessment of translation: the evaluator, the client, the translation agency, publisher, reader, translator, etc.