Degrees of adequacy: the disclosure of levels of validity in language assessment

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Koers Pub Date : 2019-03-29 DOI:10.19108/KOERS.84.1.2451
A. Weideman
{"title":"Degrees of adequacy: the disclosure of levels of validity in language assessment","authors":"A. Weideman","doi":"10.19108/KOERS.84.1.2451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The conceptualization of validity remains contested in educational assessment in general, and in language assessment in particular. Validation and validity are the subjective and objective sides of the process of building a systematic argument for the adequacy of tests. Currently, validation is conceptualized as being dependent on the validity of the interpretation of the results of the instrument. Yet when a test yields a score, that is a first indication of its adequacy, or validity. As the history of validity theory shows, adequacy is further disclosed with reference to the theoretical defensibility (“construct validity”) of a language test. That analogical analytical disclosure of validity is taken further in the lingually analogical question of whether the test scores are interpretable, and meaningful. This paper will illustrate these various degrees of adequacy with reference mainly to empirical analyses of a number of tests of academic literacy, from pre-school level tests of emergent literacy, to measurements of postgraduate students’ ability to cope with the language demands of their study. Further disclosures of language test design will be dealt with more comprehensively in a follow-up paper. Both papers present an analysis of how such disclosures relate to a theoretical framework for responsible test design. Grade van toereikendheid: die ontsluiting van vlakke van geldigheid in taaltoetsing Opsomming Om geldigheid te konsepsualiseer bly 'n betwiste saak in opvoedkundige meting in die algemeen, en in taalassessering in die besonder. Geldigmaking en geldigheid kan respektiewelik opgevat word as die subjektiewe en objektiewe kante van die sistematiese argument wat gevoer kan word vir die toereikendheid van toetse. Tans word geldigmaking gekonseptualiseer as afhanklik van die interpretasie van die resultate van die instrument. Tog is dit so dat wanneer 'n toets 'n punt oplewer, dit 'n eerste aanduiding is van sy geldigheid. Soos die geskiedenis van geldigheidsteorie ook aantoon, word daardie toereikendheid verder ontsluit met verwysing na die teoretiese regverdiging (konstrukgeldigheid) van 'n taaltoets. Daardie logies-analitiese ontsluiting van geldigheid word verder geneem in die analogies linguale vraag: Is die toetsresultate interpreteerbaar en betekenisvol? Hierdie artikel illustreer hierdie verskillende grade van geldigheid met verwysing na empiriese analises van toetse van akademiese geletterdheid, vanaf voorskoolse toetse van ontluikende geletterdheid tot by metings van nagraadse studente se vermoë om die eise van akademiese diskoers te hanteer. Verdere ontsluitings van taaltoetsontwerp word vollediger hanteer in 'n opvolgartikel. Beide artikels bied 'n analise van hoe sulke ontsluitings verband hou met 'n teoretiese raamwerk vir verantwoordelike toetsontwerp.","PeriodicalId":38057,"journal":{"name":"Koers","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Koers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.84.1.2451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

The conceptualization of validity remains contested in educational assessment in general, and in language assessment in particular. Validation and validity are the subjective and objective sides of the process of building a systematic argument for the adequacy of tests. Currently, validation is conceptualized as being dependent on the validity of the interpretation of the results of the instrument. Yet when a test yields a score, that is a first indication of its adequacy, or validity. As the history of validity theory shows, adequacy is further disclosed with reference to the theoretical defensibility (“construct validity”) of a language test. That analogical analytical disclosure of validity is taken further in the lingually analogical question of whether the test scores are interpretable, and meaningful. This paper will illustrate these various degrees of adequacy with reference mainly to empirical analyses of a number of tests of academic literacy, from pre-school level tests of emergent literacy, to measurements of postgraduate students’ ability to cope with the language demands of their study. Further disclosures of language test design will be dealt with more comprehensively in a follow-up paper. Both papers present an analysis of how such disclosures relate to a theoretical framework for responsible test design. Grade van toereikendheid: die ontsluiting van vlakke van geldigheid in taaltoetsing Opsomming Om geldigheid te konsepsualiseer bly 'n betwiste saak in opvoedkundige meting in die algemeen, en in taalassessering in die besonder. Geldigmaking en geldigheid kan respektiewelik opgevat word as die subjektiewe en objektiewe kante van die sistematiese argument wat gevoer kan word vir die toereikendheid van toetse. Tans word geldigmaking gekonseptualiseer as afhanklik van die interpretasie van die resultate van die instrument. Tog is dit so dat wanneer 'n toets 'n punt oplewer, dit 'n eerste aanduiding is van sy geldigheid. Soos die geskiedenis van geldigheidsteorie ook aantoon, word daardie toereikendheid verder ontsluit met verwysing na die teoretiese regverdiging (konstrukgeldigheid) van 'n taaltoets. Daardie logies-analitiese ontsluiting van geldigheid word verder geneem in die analogies linguale vraag: Is die toetsresultate interpreteerbaar en betekenisvol? Hierdie artikel illustreer hierdie verskillende grade van geldigheid met verwysing na empiriese analises van toetse van akademiese geletterdheid, vanaf voorskoolse toetse van ontluikende geletterdheid tot by metings van nagraadse studente se vermoë om die eise van akademiese diskoers te hanteer. Verdere ontsluitings van taaltoetsontwerp word vollediger hanteer in 'n opvolgartikel. Beide artikels bied 'n analise van hoe sulke ontsluitings verband hou met 'n teoretiese raamwerk vir verantwoordelike toetsontwerp.
充分性程度:语言评估中有效性水平的披露
效度的概念在一般的教育评估中仍然存在争议,特别是在语言评估中。验证和有效性是为测试的充分性建立系统论证过程的主观和客观方面。目前,验证被概念化为依赖于对仪器结果解释的有效性。然而,当一项测试得出一个分数时,这是它的充分性或有效性的第一个迹象。正如效度理论的发展历程所表明的那样,语言测试的理论防卫性(“构式效度”)进一步揭示了充分性。在测试分数是否可解释和有意义的语言类比问题中,进一步采取了有效性的类比分析披露。本文将主要通过对一系列学术素养测试的实证分析来说明这些不同程度的充分性,从学前水平的新兴素养测试到研究生应对学习语言需求的能力测量。语言测试设计的进一步披露将在后续论文中更全面地讨论。两篇论文都分析了这些披露与负责任测试设计的理论框架之间的关系。在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中,在模具质量评定中。Geldigmaking en geldigheid菅直人respektiewelik opgevat单词死subjektiewe en objektiewe卡里·范死sistematiese论点窟gevo公司菅直人词梵toereikendheid van toetse死去。这个词的翻译是:翻译,翻译,翻译,结果,翻译工具。这样一来,我们就不会再用“我的脚”来代替“我的脚”,也不会再用“我的脚”来代替“我的脚”,而是用“我的脚”来代替“我的脚”。所以这个词的意思是:“我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是我的意思。”逻辑分析:在语言类比中分析词的基因:结果解释是否存在于两种语言之间?作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:作者简介:Verdere ontsluitings van taaltoetsontwerp word vollediger hanteer in 'n opvolgartikel。北京的文章试图分析如何将这些问题与如何解决这些问题联系在一起,并将其与其他问题联系在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Koers
Koers Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信