This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Sarig, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Testing meaning construction: can we do it fairly?

The Open University of Israel, and The Ramat Aviv Kibbutzim Teachers College

Variations in readers' content schemata explain why different readers may construct different meanings for a given text and still be in the right. When aiming to reflect this meaning relatively in meaning construction tests, test developers may face theoretical, ethical and practical questions: Are any limits on the free interpretation of a text justifiable? If so, what are these limits? If these limits are set, how can they be reflected in a fair, objective and feasible reading test? Following principles emerging from work by Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) and Alderson and Short (1981), a meaning consensus criterion answer (MCCA) is suggested as a basis for a relative meaning reading com prehension test. The MCCA is derived from analyses of model answers of a sample of readers from diverse professional backgrounds and levels of expertise. Thus, the MCCA represents both essential, full-consensus compo nents of text meaning, as well as partial, but still considerable, consensus com ponents. It is recommended that the MCCA be used as a basis for item scoring in order to ensure a more feasible objective, yet more relative and, therefore, an unbiased tool for the testing of meaning construction. The paper includes a discussion of the theoretical rationale for the MCCA, and a detailed and an exemplified report on the procedures the MCCA involves. A discussion of MCCA reliability, interconsistency, discrimination power and score meaning follows, and suggestions for future research are made.

Language Testing, Vol. 6, No. 1, 77-94 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/026553228900600107


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				M. Kobayashi Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format Language Testing, April 1, 2002; 19(2): 193 - 220. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Storey Examining the test-taking process: a cognitive perspective on the discourse cloze test Language Testing, July 1, 1997; 14(2): 214 - 231. [Abstract] [PDF]