This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hudson, T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Surrogate indices for item information functions in criterion-referenced language testing

Address for correspondence: Dept of English as a Second Language, 1890 East-West Road, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822

Item analysis of criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) presents several practical problems. Traditional item discrimination indices may be of limited informa tiveness if score distributions are narrow. When no prior defined mastery group is available application of the CRT item difference index is not possible. In settings which have relatively small numbers of examinees, item-response theory (IRT) methods will not yield stable estimates. Like wise, in many language programs either IRT computer programs are unavailable or the results of IRT analysis will be uninformative to those involved in test development. This study examines the relationship of three item discrimination indices and the biserial correlation to IRT item informa tion functions (IIFs) in order to provide testers with information which will be useful in contexts in which IRT analysis is inappropriate. Three indices which indicate item discrimination at the cut-score are compared to IRT results on data from three types of language test data. The indices are the phi-coefficient (), the B-index and the agreement statistic. The three types of language tests are 1) an ESL reading placement test, 2) an ESL reading achievement test and 3) an EFL multiple-choice reading cloze test. Implica tions and cautions for CRT development and analysis are presented.

Language Testing, Vol. 10, No. 2, 171-191 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229301000204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. F. Bachman Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count counts Language Testing, January 1, 2000; 17(1): 1 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]