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 Kobayashi, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format

University of Warwick, Miyoko.Kobayashi{at}warwick.ac.uk

If tests are to provide an accurate measure of learners’ language abilities, examiners must minimize the influence of intervening factors such as text organization and response format on test results. The purpose of this article is to investigate the effects of these two factors on second language learners’ performance in reading comprehension tests. The study analyses the results of reading comprehension tests which were delivered to 754 Japanese university students. The main finding is that text organization and test format had a significant impact on the students’ performance. When texts were clearly structured, the more proficient students achieved better results in summary writing and open-ended questions. By contrast the structure of the text made little difference to the performance of the less proficient students. This suggests that well-structured texts make it easier to differentiate between students with different levels of proficiency. Examiners have hitherto taken little notice of the impact of text structure and test format on students’ results. By paying more attention to these factors, they will enhance the validity of their tests.

Language Testing, Vol. 19, No. 2, 193-220 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532202lt227oa


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. In'nami and R. Koizumi A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on multiple-choice and open-ended formats Language Testing, April 1, 2009; 26(2): 219 - 244. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Yamada Lexical patterns in L2 textual gist identification assessment Language Testing, January 1, 2009; 26(1): 101 - 122. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Guoxing Yu Reading to summarize in English and Chinese: A tale of two languages? Language Testing, October 1, 2008; 25(4): 521 - 551. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Guoxing Yu Students' voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: Empowerment and democracy for test takers? Language Testing, October 1, 2007; 24(4): 539 - 572. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Liying Cheng, D. A. Klinger, and Ying Zheng The challenges of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test for second language students Language Testing, April 1, 2007; 24(2): 185 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. A. Rupp, T. Ferne, and H. Choi How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: a cognitive processing perspective Language Testing, October 1, 2006; 23(4): 441 - 474. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. B. Green and C. J. Weir Can placement tests inform instructional decisions? Language Testing, October 1, 2004; 21(4): 467 - 494. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Chen On text structure, language proficiency, and reading comprehension test format interactions: a reply to Kobayashi, 2002 Language Testing, April 1, 2004; 21(2): 228 - 234. [PDF]

				M. Kobayashi Investigation of test method effects: text organization and response format: a response to Chen, 2004 Language Testing, April 1, 2004; 21(2): 235 - 244. [PDF]