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 Van Moere, A.
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?

Validity evidence in a university group oral test

Alistair Van Moere

Lancaster University, a.vanmoere{at}lancaster.ac.uk

This article investigates a group oral test as administered at a university in Japan to find if it is appropriate to use scores for higher stakes decision making. It is one component of an in-house English proficiency test used for placing students, evaluating their progress, and making informed decisions for the development of the English language curriculum. The implementation of a cut-score for students to advance through the university system has recently been proposed, bringing the group oral test component under increased scrutiny. On two successive occasion 113 participants sat the oral test in groups composed of different interlocutors each time. Rasch analysis shows rater fit within acceptable levels considering the length and nature of the test; however, at correlations of .74 inter-rater agreements are lower than has been reported in research on commercially available interview tests. Candidates’ scores on the two different test occasions correlate at .61. A generalizability study shows that the greatest systematic variation in test scores is contributed by the person-by-occasion interaction. Topic, or prompt, was not a significant factor. Candidates’ performances, or how raters perceive an individual candidates’ ability, could be affected to a large degree by the characteristics of interlocutors and interaction dynamics within the group.

Language Testing, Vol. 23, No. 4, 411-440 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532206lt336oa


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
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]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
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]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
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]