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 Bonk, W. J. Articles by Ockey, G. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task

University of Colorado at Boulder

Gary J. Ockey

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

FACETS many-facet Rasch analysis software (Linacre, 1998a) was utilized to look at two consecutive administrations of a large-scale (more than 1000 examinees) second language oral assessment in the form of a peer group discussion task with Japanese English-major university students. Facets modeled in the analysis were examinee, prompt, rater, and five rating category ‘items.’ Unidimensionality was shown to be strong in both datasets, and approaches to interpreting fit values for the facets modeled in the analysis were discussed. Examinee ability was the most substantial facet, followed by rater severity, and item. The prompt facet was negligible in magnitude. Rater differences in terms of severity were generally large, but this characteristic was not stable over time for individuals; returning raters tended to move toward greater severity and consistency, while new raters showed much more inconsistency. Analysis of the scales showed general validity in gradations of scale steps, though raters had some difficulty discerning between categories at the ends of the scales for pronunciation and communicative skills.

Language Testing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 89-110 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532203lt245oa


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Taylor and G. Wigglesworth Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 325 - 339. [PDF]

				L. Brooks Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 341 - 366. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Davis The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 367 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. J. Ockey The effects of group members' personalities on a test taker's L2 group oral discussion test scores Language Testing, April 1, 2009; 26(2): 161 - 186. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Matsuno Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms Language Testing, January 1, 2009; 26(1): 075 - 100. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Van Moere Validity evidence in a university group oral test Language Testing, October 1, 2006; 23(4): 411 - 440. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. He and Y. Dai A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 370 - 401. [Abstract] [PDF]