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 Bachman, L. F. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment

University of California, Los Angeles, bachman{at}humnet.ucla.edu

The complexities of task-based language performance assessment (TBLPA) are leading language testers to reconsider many of the fundamental issues about what we want to assess, how we go about it and what sorts of evidence we need to provide in order to justify the ways in which we use our assessments. One claim of TBLPA is that such assessments can be used to make predictions about performance on future language use tasks outside the test itself. I argue that there are several problems with supporting such predictions. These problems are related to task selection, generalizability and extrapolation. Because of the complexity and diversity of tasks in most ‘real-life’ domains, the evidence of content relevance and representativeness that is required to support the use of test scores for prediction is extremely difficult to provide.

A more general problem is the way in which difficulty is conceptualized, both in the way tasks are described and in current measurement models. The conceptualization of ‘difficulty features’ confounds task characteristics with test-takers’ language ability and introduces a hypothetical ‘difficulty’ factor as a determinant of test performance. In current measurement models, ‘difficulty’ is essentially an artifact of test performance, and not a characteristic of assessment tasks themselves. Because of these problems, current approaches to using task characteristics alone to predict difficulty are unlikely to yield consistent or meaningful results. As a way forward, a number of suggestions are provided for both language testing research and practice.

Language Testing, Vol. 19, No. 4, 453-476 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532202lt240oa


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Plakans Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment Language Testing, October 1, 2009; 26(4): 561 - 587. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. T. Carr The factor structure of test task characteristics and examinee performance Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 269 - 289. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Lumley and B. O'Sullivan The effect of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking Language Testing, October 1, 2005; 22(4): 415 - 437. [Abstract] [PDF]

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

				M. Chalhoub-Deville Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends Language Testing, October 1, 2003; 20(4): 369 - 383. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. McNamara Book Review: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests Language Testing, October 1, 2003; 20(4): 466 - 473. [PDF]