Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

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 Schmitt, N.
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?

The relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word-class knowledge

Norbert Schmitt

University of Nottingham, Norbert.Schmitt{at}nottingham.ac.uk

In this paper the author argues that issues of construct validity should be given more prominence in the validation of lexical test items. One way of determining the construct validity of vocabulary items is to interview subjects directly after taking the items to ascertain what is actually known about the target words in question. This approach was combined with the framework of lexical competency proposed by Nation (1990) in an exploratory study which investigated the behaviour of lexical items on TOEFL. In individual interviews, six TOEFL vocabulary items were given to 30 pre-university international students who were then questioned about their knowledge of the target words’ associations, grammatical properties, collocations and various meaning senses. The results suggest that the type of item currently employed in TOEFL does not adequately reflect association, grammatical and collocational knowledge, and that even meaning knowledge is not captured as well as might be hoped. This indicates that the field could benefit from deeper exploration of what vocabulary test items are actually measuring.

Language Testing, Vol. 16, No. 2, 189-216 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229901600204
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
 Language TestingHome page
R. Schoonen and M. Verhallen
The assessment of deep word knowledge in young first and second language learners
Language Testing, April 1, 2008; 25(2): 211 - 236.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
J. C. Alderson
Judging the Frequency of English Words
Applied Linguistics, September 1, 2007; 28(3): 383 - 409.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
B. Laufer, C. Elder, K. Hill, and P. Congdon
Size and strength: do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge?
Language Testing, April 1, 2004; 21(2): 202 - 226.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
N. Schmitt, D. Schmitt, and C. Clapham
Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test
Language Testing, January 1, 2001; 18(1): 55 - 88.
[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]

Home page
 Second Language ResearchHome page
N. Schmitt and B. Dunham
Exploring native and non-native intuitions of word frequency
Second Language Research, October 1, 1999; 15(4): 389 - 411.
[Abstract] [PDF]