Book contents
- Validity Argument in Language Testing
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Validity Argument in Language Testing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- 1 Introduction to Validity Argument in Language Testing and Assessment
- Part I Basic Concepts and Uses of Validity Argument in Language Testing and Assessment
- Part II Investigating Score Interpretations
- Part III Investigating Score Uses and Consequences
- Part IV Conclusion
- Index
- References
Part III - Investigating Score Uses and Consequences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 January 2021
Book contents
- Validity Argument in Language Testing
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Validity Argument in Language Testing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- 1 Introduction to Validity Argument in Language Testing and Assessment
- Part I Basic Concepts and Uses of Validity Argument in Language Testing and Assessment
- Part II Investigating Score Interpretations
- Part III Investigating Score Uses and Consequences
- Part IV Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Validity Argument in Language TestingCase Studies of Validation Research, pp. 233 - 322Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Chan, S. (2017). Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test. Language Testing in Asia, 7(10), 1–27.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign LanguageTM. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. Spann Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 7, 47–84.Google Scholar
Jun, H. S. (2014). A validity argument for the use of scores from a web-search-permitted and web-source-based integrated writing test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527–535.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2012). Articulating a validity argument. In Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 34–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.Google Scholar
Ranalli, J., Feng, H.-S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2018). Exploring the potential of process-tracing technologies to support assessment for learning of L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 77–89.Google Scholar
Stapleton, P. (2005a). Evaluating web-sources: Internet literacy and L2 academic writing. ELT Journal, 59(2), 135–143.Google Scholar
Stapleton, P. (2005b). Using the web as a research source: Implications for L2 academic writing. Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 177–189.Google Scholar
Weigle, S. C., & Jensen, L. (1997). Assessment issues for content-based instruction. In Snow, M. A. & Brinton, D. (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 201–212). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
References
Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. (2014). Consequences, impact, and washback. In Kunnan, A. J. (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 1130–1146). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla071Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Chung, Y.-R., Hegelheimer, V., Pendar, N., & Xu, J. (2010). Towards a computer-delivered test of productive grammatical ability. Language Testing, 27(4), 443–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210367633Google Scholar
Chung, Y.-R. (2014). A test of productive English grammatical ability in academic writing: Development and validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In Wainer, H. (Ed.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kane, M. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 198–211.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (2006). Validity in language testing: The challenge of Sam Messick’s legacy. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(1), 31–51.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1996). Validity of performance assessments. In Phillips, G. W. (Ed.), Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
Moss, P. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
Sireci, S. G. (2016). On the validity of useless tests. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1072084Google Scholar
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. In Thompson, J. B. (Ed.), The methodology of interpretation (pp. 272–327). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
References
Blais, J.-G., & Laurier, M. D. (1995). The dimensionality of a placement test from several analytical perspectives. Language Testing, 12(1), 72–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200105Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. (1990). Test-takers’ reactions to a placement test. Language Testing, 7(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229000700103Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. (1989). Improving ESL placement tests using two perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587508Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cho, Y., & Bridgeman, B. (2012). Relationship of TOEFL IBT scores to academic performance: Some evidence from American universities. Language Testing, 29(3), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211430368Google Scholar
Clark, M. (2004). By the numbers: The rationale for Rasch analysis in placement testing. Second Language Studies, 22(2), 61–90.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fox, J. D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.004Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (1997). An English language placement test: Issues in reliability and validity. Language Testing, 14(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400201Google Scholar
Graham, J. G. (1987). English language proficiency and the prediction of academic success. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, A. B., & Weir, C. J. (2004). Can placement tests inform instructional decisions? Language Testing, 21(4), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt293oaGoogle Scholar
Isbell, D., Nelly, M., & Arvizu, G. (2014). Is equating reasonable for small-scale language testing programs? In The 36th Language Testing Research Colloquium. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU University.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunnan, A. J. (1990). DIF in native language and gender groups in an ESL placement test. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 741–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587128Google Scholar
Kunnan, A. J. (1992). An investigation of a criterion-referenced test using G-theory, and factor and cluster analyses. Language Testing, 9(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229200900104Google Scholar
Lee, Y.-J., & Greene, J. (2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306148Google Scholar
Li, Z. (2015). An argument-based validation study of the English Placement Test (EPT) – Focusing on the inferences of extrapolation and ramification. Iowa State University. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1733954827Google Scholar
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., … Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Y. (2007). A Rasch-based analysis of an in-house English placement test. In Newfields, T., Gledall, I., Wanner, P., & Kawate-Mierzejewska, M. (Eds.), Second language acquisition – Theory and pedagogy: Proceedings of the 6th annual JALT Pan-SIG conference (pp. 97–109). Sendai, Japan: Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University. Retrieved from http://jalt.org/pansig/2007/HTML/Nakamura.htmGoogle Scholar
Phakiti, A., Hirsh, D., & Woodrow, L. (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL international students in Australia. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240913513520Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (Mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024Google Scholar
Plakans, L., & Burke, M. (2013). The decision-making process in language program placement: Test and nontest factors interacting in context. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.627598Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Applications using Mplus. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar