Accuplacer Companion in a foreign language context: An argument-based validation of both test score meaning and impact

IF 0.1 Q4 LINGUISTICS
Robert C. Johnson, A. Riazi
{"title":"Accuplacer Companion in a foreign language context: An argument-based validation of both test score meaning and impact","authors":"Robert C. Johnson, A. Riazi","doi":"10.58379/vavb1448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Use of a single, standardised instrument to make high-stakes decisions about test-takers is pervasive in higher education around the world, including English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Contrary to longstanding best practices, however, few test users endeavour to meaningfully validate the instrument(s) they use for their specific context and purposes. This study reports efforts to validate a standardised placement test, used in a US-accredited, higher education institution in the Pacific, to exempt, exclude, or place students within its Developmental English Program. A hybrid of two validation structures – Kane’s (1992, 1994) interpretive model and Bachman’s (2005) and Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) assessment use argument – and a broad range of types and sources of evidence were used to ensure a balanced focus on both test score interpretation and test utilisation. Outcomes establish serious doubt as to the validity of the instrument for the local context. Moreover, results provide valuable insights regarding the dangers of not evaluating the validity of an assessment for the local context, the relative strengths and weaknesses of standardised tests used for placement, and the value of argument-based validation.","PeriodicalId":29650,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language Assessment","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Language Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58379/vavb1448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Use of a single, standardised instrument to make high-stakes decisions about test-takers is pervasive in higher education around the world, including English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Contrary to longstanding best practices, however, few test users endeavour to meaningfully validate the instrument(s) they use for their specific context and purposes. This study reports efforts to validate a standardised placement test, used in a US-accredited, higher education institution in the Pacific, to exempt, exclude, or place students within its Developmental English Program. A hybrid of two validation structures – Kane’s (1992, 1994) interpretive model and Bachman’s (2005) and Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) assessment use argument – and a broad range of types and sources of evidence were used to ensure a balanced focus on both test score interpretation and test utilisation. Outcomes establish serious doubt as to the validity of the instrument for the local context. Moreover, results provide valuable insights regarding the dangers of not evaluating the validity of an assessment for the local context, the relative strengths and weaknesses of standardised tests used for placement, and the value of argument-based validation.
外语语境中的Accuplacer伴侣:基于论证的测试分数意义和影响验证
在世界各地的高等教育中,包括英语作为外语(EFL)的背景下,使用单一的、标准化的工具来对考生做出高风险的决定是很普遍的。然而,与长期存在的最佳实践相反,很少有测试用户努力有意义地验证他们为特定环境和目的使用的工具。本研究报告了验证标准化分班测试的努力,该测试在太平洋地区的美国认可的高等教育机构中使用,以免除,排除或将学生安置在其发展英语课程中。两种验证结构——凯恩(1992、1994)的解释模型和巴赫曼(2005)、巴赫曼和帕尔默(2010)的评估使用论证——的混合,以及广泛的证据类型和来源,以确保对考试成绩解释和考试利用的平衡关注。结果严重怀疑该工具在当地情况下的有效性。此外,研究结果提供了宝贵的见解,说明不根据当地情况评估评估的有效性的危险、用于安置的标准化测试的相对优势和劣势,以及基于论证的验证的价值。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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