Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lynch, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by McNamara, T. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Using G-theory and Many-facet Rasch measurement in the development of performance assessments of the ESL speaking skills of immigrants

Brian K. Lynch

University of Melbourne, b.lynch{at}language.unimelb.edu.au

T. F. McNamara

University of Melbourne

Second language performance tests, through the richness of the assessment context, introduce a range of facets which may influence the chances of success of a candidate on the test. This study investigates the potential roles of Generalizability theory (G-theory) (Brennan, 1983; Shavelson and Webb, 1991) and Many-facet Rasch measurement (Linacre, 1989; Linacre and Wright, 1993; McNamara, 1996) in the development of such a performance-based assessment procedure. This represents an extension of preliminary investigations into the relative contributions of these procedures (e.g., Bachman et al., 1995) to another assessment setting. Data for this study come from a trial of materials from the access: test, a test of communicative skills in English as a Second Language for intending immigrants to Australia. The performances of 83 candidates on the speaking skills module were multiply rated and analysed using GENOVA (Crick and Brennan, 1984) and FACETS (Linacre and Wright, 1993). The advantages and specific roles of these contrasting analytical techniques are considered in detail in the light of this assessment context.

Language Testing, Vol. 15, No. 2, 158-180 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229801500202
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. Huang
Magnitude of Task-Sampling Variability in Performance Assessment: A Meta-Analysis
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2009; 69(6): 887 - 912.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Y. Sawaki
Construct validation of analytic rating scales in a speaking assessment: Reporting a score profile and a composite
Language Testing, July 1, 2007; 24(3): 355 - 390.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
S. Zhang
Investigating the relative effects of persons, items, sections, and languages on TOEIC score dependability
Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 351 - 369.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Y.-W. Lee
Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks
Language Testing, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 131 - 166.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
R. Schoonen
Generalizability of writing scores: an application of structural equation modeling
Language Testing, January 1, 2005; 22(1): 1 - 30.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
S.-K. Shin
Did they take the same test? Examinee language proficiency and the structure of language tests
Language Testing, January 1, 2005; 22(1): 31 - 57.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Y. Kozaki
Using GENOVA and FACETS to set multiple standards on performance assessment for certification in medical translation from Japanese into English
Language Testing, January 1, 2004; 21(1): 1 - 27.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
G. Fulcher and R. M. Reiter
Task difficulty in speaking tests
Language Testing, July 1, 2003; 20(3): 321 - 344.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Brown
Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency
Language Testing, January 1, 2003; 20(1): 1 - 25.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
W. J. Bonk and G. J. Ockey
A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task
Language Testing, January 1, 2003; 20(1): 89 - 110.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
K. Kondo-Brown
A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance
Language Testing, January 1, 2002; 19(1): 3 - 31.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
R. Salaberry
Revising the revised format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview
Language Testing, July 1, 2000; 17(3): 289 - 310.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
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]