Validity issues in assessing English language learners' language proficiency

Educational Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 2-3, 2008, Pages 80-107

  Wolf, Mikyung Kim ^a   Farnsworth, Tim ^a   Herman, Joan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54549120414     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627190802394222     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Abedi, J. (2007). English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice. Davis: University of California.
2. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data (CRESST Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
3. Achieve. (2003). Measuring up: A report on education standards and assessments for Montgomery County. Washington, DC: Achieve.
4. American Educational Research Association, American PsychologicalAssociation,& National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
5. Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center. (2007). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of evidence of assessments of English language proficiency: Body of evidence summary. San Francisco: WestEd.
6. Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bachman, L. F. (2006, September). Issues in assessing the English proficiency and academic achievement of English language learners. Paper presented at the MidWest Association of Language Testers Conference, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
8. Bailey, A. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. Bibian, G. C. (2006). An ethnographic case study of a reconstituted urban middle school and the factors that contribute to improved ELL redesignation rates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
10. Butler, F. A. & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Students' concurrent performance on tests of English language proficiency and academic achievement. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11. Butler, F. A., Lord, C., Bailey, A. (2004). An approach to operationalizing academic language for language test development purposes: Evidence from fifth-grade science and math (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 626). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
12. Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Castellon, M. (2007). ELLs and standardized assessments: The interaction between language proficiency and performance on standardized tests. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test (pp. 27-49). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Durán, R. P., & Lee, Y. (2007, June). English language proficiency tests. One dimension or many? The WLPT II. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Nashville, TN.
14. Garcia, G., McKoon, G., & August, D. (2006). Language and literacy assessment of language-minority students. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners (pp. 597-624). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Hakuta, K., & Beatty, A. (Eds.). (2000). Testing English-language learners in U.S. schools: Report and workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16. Herman, J. L., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Making benchmark testing work for accountability and improvement: Quality matters. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 48-55.
17. Herman, J. L., Webb, N., & Zuniga, S. (2003). Alignment and college admissions: The match of expectations, assessments, and educator perspectives (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 593). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
18. IPT: The new Title III testing system: Language proficiency testing progress report. (2004). Brea, CA: Ballard & Tighe, Publishers. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from http://www.nclb.ballard-tighe.com/
19. Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
20. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
21. LaMarca, P., Redfield, D., & Winter, P. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
22. LAS Links™: The technical manual. (2006). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
23. Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
25. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19, 477-496.
26. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
27. Porter, A. C. (2002).Measuring the content in instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
28. Rabinowitz, S., & Sato E. (2006). Technical adequacy of assessments fro alternate student populations: Technical review of high-stakes assessment for English language learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
29. Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Tech. Rep. No. 2003-1). Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
30. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431-459.
31. Stack, J. (2002, September). California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Language proficiency and academic achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Center for the Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California, Los Angeles.
32. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
33. Webb, N. (1999). Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
34. Webb, N. (2001, November). Alignment analysis of STATE F Language Arts Standards and Assessments, Grades 5, 8, and 11 (Paper prepared for the Technical Issues of Large-Scale Assessment state collaborative). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
35. Wixson, K. K., Fisk, M. C., Dutro, E., & McDaniel, J. (2002). The alignment of state standards and assessments in elementary reading (CIERA Rep. No. 3-024). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
36. Wolf, M. K., Kao, J., Griffin, N., Herman, J. L., Bachman, P. L., Chang, S. M., et al. (2008). Issues in assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures and accommodation uses - Practice review (CRESST Tech. Rep. No. 732). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
37. Wolf, M. K., Kao, J., Herman, J. L., Bachman, L. F., Bailey, A. L., Bachman, P. L., et al. (2008). Issues in assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures and accommodation uses - Literature review (CRESST Tech. Rep. No. 731). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).