Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T17:35:00.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment and Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Lyle F. Bachman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Research and development in the assessment of language abilities in the past decade have been concerned both with achieving a better understanding of the nature of language abilities and other factors that affect performance on language tests and with developing methods of assessment that are consistent with the way applied linguists view language use. The way language testers conceptualize language abilities has been strongly influenced by the broadened view of language proficiency as communicative competence that has emerged in applied linguistics. And while this view of language proficiency provides a much richer conceptual basis for characterizing the language abilities to be measured, it has presented language testers with a major challenge in defining these abilities and the interactions among them with sufficient precision to permit their measurement. Language testing researchers have also been influenced by developments in second language acquisition, investigating the effects on test performance of other factors such as background knowledge, cognitive style, native language, ethnicity, and sex. Finally, language testing research and practice have been influenced by advances in psychometrics, in that more sophisticated analytic tools are being used both to unravel the tangled web of language abilities and to assure thhat the measures of these abilities are reliable, valid, efficient, and appropriate for the uses for which they are intended.

Type
Language Pedagogy
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 10 , March 1989 , pp. 210 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderman, D. L. and Holland, P. W.. 1981. Item performance across native language groups on the Tests of English as a Foreign Language. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [TOEFL Research Report, No. 9.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J. C. 1981. Reaction of Morrow paper (3). In Alderson, J. C. and Hughes, A. (eds.) Issues in language testing. London: The British Council. 45–54. [ELT Documents No. 111.]Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. 1988. Testing reading comprehension skills. Paper given at the Sixth Colloquium on Research in Reading in a Second Language, TESOL Conference, Chicago, 03.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. n.d. Innovation in language testing: Can the micro-comptuer help? Lancaster: University of Lancaster. [Special Report No. 1: Language Testing Update.]Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. and Hughes, A. (eds.) 1981. Issues in Language testing. London: The British Council. [ELT Document No. 111.]Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A. H.. 1985. The effect of students' academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language testing. 2.2. 192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J. C., Henning, G., and Lukmani, Y.. 1987. Levels of understanding in reading comprehension test. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Miami, 04.Google Scholar
Allen, E. D. et al. , 1988. Compreshension and text genre: An analysis of secondary school foreign language readers. Modern language journal. 72.2. 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. 1986. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language.Google Scholar
Associated Examining Board. 1987. Test of English for educational purposes. Aldershot, Hampshire: Associated Examining Board.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1986. The Test of English as a Foreign Language as a measure of communicative competence. In Stansfield, C. W. (ed.) Toward communicative competence testing: Proceedings of the Second TOEFL Invitational Conference. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 69–88.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1988. Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. In Valdman, A. (ed.) The assessment of foreign language oral proficiency. [Special issue of Studies in second language acquisition.] 10.2.149–164.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. Forthcoming. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Choi, I.. 1989. An investigation into the feasibility of using item response theory for examing the comparability of CTCS measures. Urbana, IL: Cambridge-TOEFL Comparability Study.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Clark, J. L. D.. 1987. The measurement of foreign/second language proficiency. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 490. 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S.. 1982. The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL quarterly. 16.4. 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S.. 1989. The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Tesitng. 6.1. 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Savignon, S. J.. 1986. The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern language journal. 70.4.380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. et al. , 1988. Task and ability analysis as a basis for examining content and construct comparability in two EFL proficiency test batteries. Language testing. 5.2.128–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1989. An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a foreign language: The Cambridge-TOEFL Comparability Study: Final Report. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Synidcate.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. B. 1984. Toward an information processing perspective in foreign language reading. Modern language journal. 68.4.322–331.Google Scholar
Bolus, R. E., Hinofotis, F. B., and Bailey, K. M.. 1982. An introduction to generaliazability theory in second language research. Language learning. 32.2.245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. 1989. Short-cut statistics for criterion-referenced reliability. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, San Antonio, 03Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1984. Considerations in the testing of reading and listening proficiency. Foreign language annals. 4.4.349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. 1988. The measurement of communicative competence. In Kaplan, R. B. et al. , (eds.) Annual review of applied linguistics, VIII. New York: Cambridge University Press. 67–84.Google Scholar
Canale, M. et al. , 1984. The testing of reading and listening proficiency: A synthesis. Foreign language annals. 17.2.389–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1980. Testing communicative performace. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Carton, A. S. and Kaya-Carton, E.. 1986. Multidimensionality of foreign language reading proficiency: Preliminary considerations in assessment. Foreign language annals. 19.2.95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. 1988. Field independence: A source of language test variance. Language testing. 5.1.62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. and Roberts, C.. 1986. Ambiguity tolerance and field dependence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language learning. 36.1.27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z. and Henning, G.. 1985. Linguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests. Language testing. 2.2.155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. 1988. Issues in reading proficiency assessment: A framework for discussion. In Lowe, P. Jr, and Standsfield, C. W. (eds.) Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 125–135.Google Scholar
Choi, I. 1989. An application of item response theory to language testing: Model-data fit studies. Urbana, IL: University of Illionois. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. and Clifford, R. T.. 1988. The FSI/ILR/ACTFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status, and needed research. In Valdman, A. (ed.) The assessment of foreign language oral proficiency. 10.2.129–147. [Special issue of Studies in second language acquisition.]Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D., Clifford, R. T. and Lett, J.. 1988. A research agenda. In Lowe, P. Jr, and Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Second language proficiency assessement: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 53–82.Google Scholar
Clifford, R. T. 1981. Convergent and discriminant validation of integrated and unitary language skills: The need for a research model. In Palmer, A. S., Grott, P. J. M., and Trosper, G. A. (eds.) The construct validation of tests of communicative competence. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. 62–70.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. 1984. On taking tests: What the students report. Language testing. 1.1.70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D. Forthcoming. English testing in Brazil: Problems in using summarizing tasks. In Hill, C. and Parry, K. (eds.) The test at the gate: Ethnographic prespectives on the assessment of English literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crick, J. E. and Brennan, R. L.. 1983. Manual for GENOVA: GENeralized Analysis Of VAriance System. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.Google Scholar
Criper, C. and Davies, A.. 1988. ELTS validation project report. London: The British Council and the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.Google Scholar
Cziko, G. A. 1982. Improving the psychometric, criterion-referenced, and practical qualities of integrative language tests. TESOL quarterly. 16.3.367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cziko, G. A. 1983. Psychometric and edumetric approaches to language testing. In Oller, J. W. Jr, (ed:) Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 289–307.Google Scholar
Dandonoli, P. 1987. ACTFL's current research in proficiency testing. In Byrnes, H. and Canale, M. (eds.) Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementations, and concepts. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. 75–96.Google Scholar
Davidson, F. and Henning, G.. 1985. A self-rating scale of English proficiency: Rasch scalar analysis of items and rating categories. Language testing. 2.2.164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, M. and Molloy, J.. 1983. ESP test development for engineering students. In Oller, J. W. Jr, (ed.) Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 280–288.Google Scholar
Griffin, P. E. 1985. The use of latent trait models in the calibration of tests of spoken language in large-scale selection-placement programs. In Lee, Y. P. et al. , (eds.) New directions in language testing. Oxford: Pergamon. 149–161.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. 1986. Test validations and congnitive psychology: Some methodological considerations. Language testing. 3.2.159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, G. A. 1988. Student major field and text content: Interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language testing. 5.1.49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J. and Stansfield, C.. 1981. The relationship between field dependent-independent congitive styles and foreign language achievement. Language learning. 31.2. 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L. 1984. Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific island cultures. TESOL quarterly. 18.2.311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, A. 1983. Communicative testing: Jam tomorrow? In Hughes, A. and Porter, D. (eds.) Current developments in language testing. London: Academic Press. 77–85.Google Scholar
Haughton, G. and Dickinson, L.. 1988. Collaborative assessment by masters candidates in a tutor-based system. Language testing. 5.2.233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, G. 1987. A guide to language testing. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Henning, G. 1988. The influence of test and sample dimensionality on latent trait person ability and item difficulty calibrations. Language testing. 5.2.83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, G., Hudson, T., and Turner, J.. 1985. Item response theory and the assumption of unidimensionality. Language testing. 2.2.141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, M. 1988. Issues in writing proficiency assessment: The government scale. In Lowe, P. Jr, and Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 149–177.Google Scholar
Hudson, T. and Lynch, B.. 1984. A criterion-referenced measurement approach to ESL. Language testing. 1.2.171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A. and Porter, D.. 1983. Current developments in language testing. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katz, A. 1988. Issues in writing proficiency assessment: The academic context. In Lowe, P. Jr, and Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 178–201.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Frawley, W.. 1985. A critical analysis. Modern language journal. 69.2.237–345.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Frawley, W.. 1988. Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in second language acquisition. 10.2.181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, J. W. 1987. Computerized adaptive language testing: A Spanish placement exam. In Bailey, K. M., Dale, T. L., and Clifford, R. T. (eds.) Language testing research: Selected papers from the 1986 Colloquium. Monterey, CA: Defense Language Institute. 1–19.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. 1986. The ACTFL guidelines for reading proficiency: Problems in definition and assessment. Paper presented at the Delaware Symposium on Language Studies, Newark.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. and Musumeci, D.. 1988. On hierarchies of reading skills and text type. Modern language journal. 72.2.173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, P. Jr, 1988. The unassimilated history. In Lowe, P. Jr, and Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 11–51.Google Scholar
Madsen, H. S. 1987. Utilizing Rasch analysis to detect cheating on language examinations. In Bailey, K. M., Dale, T. L., and Clifford, R. T. (eds.) Language testing research: Selected papers from the 1986 Colloquium. Monterey, CA: Defense Language Institute. 11–23.Google Scholar
Madsen, H. S. and Larson, J. W.. 1986. Computerized Rasch analysis of item bias in ESL tests. In Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Technology and language testing. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. 47–67.Google Scholar
Oller, J. W. Jr. 1981. Language testing research (1979–1980). In Kaplan, R. B. et al. , (eds.) Annual review of applied linguistics, I., Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 124–150.Google Scholar
Oscarson, M. 1989. Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language testing. 6.1.1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, K. and Linnville, S. E.. 1987. A construct definition study of a standardized ESL vocabulary test. Language testing. 4.2.125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, T. and Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Forthcoming. Language aptitude revisited. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Politzer, R. L. and McGroarty, M.. 1985. An explanatory study of learning behaviors and their relationships to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL quarterly. 19.1.103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Society of Arts Examinations Board. 1985. The communicative use of English as a foreign language. Orpington, Kent: Royal Society of Arts Examinations BoardGoogle Scholar
Sang, F. et al. , 1986. Models of second language competence: A structural equation approach. Language testing. 3.1.54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. J. 1985. Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern language journal. 69.2.129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1983. The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning. 33.4.527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1984. Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language testing. 1.2.147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. 1988. Language testing. Part I. Language teaching. 21.4.211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. 1989. Language testing. Part II. Language teaching. 22.1.1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spurling, S. and Ilyin, D.. 1985. The impact of learner variables on language test performance. TESOL quarterly. 19.2.283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. (ed.) 1986a. Technology and language testing. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. [Collected papers from the 1985 Colloquium.]Google Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. (ed.) 1986b. Toward communicative competence testing: Proceedings of the Second TOEFL Invitational Conference. Princeton, Nj: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. and Hansen, J.. 1983. Field dependence-independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL quarterly. 17.2.29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. and Harmon, C.. 1987. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for the less commonly taught languages. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. [Published in cooperation with the Center for Applied Linguistics.]Google Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. and Kenyon, D. M.. 1989. Development of semi-direct speaking tests for the less commonly taught languages. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. [Final Report to the U. S. Department of Education.]Google Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. et al. , Forthcoming. The development and validation of the Portuguese speaking test. Hispania.Google Scholar
Thompson, I., Thompson, R. T., and Hiple, D.. 1988. Issues concerning the less commonly taught languages. In Lowe, P. Jr, and Stansfield, C. W. (eds.) Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 83–123.Google Scholar
Van Weeren, J. and Theunissen, T. J. J. M.. 1987. Testing pronunciation: An application of generalizability theory. Language learning. 37.1.109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, C. J. 1988. Communicative language testing with special reference to English as a foreign language. Exeter: University of Exeter. [Exeter Linguistic Studies, 11.]Google Scholar
Wesche, M. et al. , 1987. The Ontario Tests of English as a Second Language [OTESL]: A report on the research. Ottawa: Ontario Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Wilds, C. P. 1975. The oral interview test. In Jones, R. L. and Spolsky, B. (eds.) Testing language proficiency. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 29–38.Google Scholar
Zeidner, M. 1986. Are English language aptitude tests biased towards culturally different minority groups? Some Israeli findings. Language testing. 3.1.80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeidner, M. 1987. A comparison of ethnic, sex and age biases in the predictive validity of English language aptitude tests: Some Israeli data. Language testing. 4.1.55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar