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 O’Sullivan, B.
Right arrow Articles by Saville, 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?

Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks

Barry O’Sullivan

The University of Reading, b.e.osullivan{at}reading.ac.uk

Cyril J. Weir

University of Surrey, Roehampton

Nick Saville

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate

Test-task validation has been an important strand in recent revision projects for University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) examinations. This article addresses the relatively neglected area of validating the match between intended and actual test-taker language with respect to a blueprint of language functions representing the construct of spoken language ability. An observation checklist designed for both a priori and a posteriori analysis of speaking task output has been developed. This checklist enables language samples elicited by the task to be scanned for these functions in real time, without resorting to the laborious and somewhat limited analysis of transcripts. The process and results of its development, implications and further applications are discussed.

Language Testing, Vol. 19, No. 1, 33-56 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532202lt219oa
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
A. M. Ducasse and A. Brown
Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 423 - 443.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Llosa
Validating a standards-based classroom assessment of English proficiency: A multitrait-multimethod approach
Language Testing, October 1, 2007; 24(4): 489 - 515.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
C. J. Weir and J. R.W. Wu
Establishing test form and individual task comparability: a case study of a semi-direct speaking test
Language Testing, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 167 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
P. Rea-Dickins
Understanding teachers as agents of assessment
Language Testing, July 1, 2004; 21(3): 249 - 258.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Cumming, L. Grant, P. Mulcahy-Ernt, and D. E. Powers
A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL
Language Testing, April 1, 2004; 21(2): 107 - 145.
[Abstract] [PDF]