The TOEFL validity argument

Building a Validity Argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 319-352

  Chapelle, Carol A ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049120286     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203937891     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Anastasi, A. (1986). Evolving concepts of test validation. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 1–15.
3. Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity(pp. 19–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Bejar, I., Douglas, D., Jamieson, J., Nissan, S., & Turner, J. (2000). TOEFL 2000 listening framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7. Briggs, D. C. (2004). Comment: Making an argument for design validity before interpretive validity. Measurement, 2(3), 171–174.
8. Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and testtaker performance on English for academic purposes speaking tasks (TOEFL Monograph No. MS-29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Butler, F. A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T., & Suomi, B. K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 speaking framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11. Chapelle, C. A. (1999). Validation in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,19, 254–272.
12. Chapelle, C., Grabe, W., & Berns, M. (1997). Communicative language proficiency: Definition and implications for TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph No. 10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Construct validity and the discourses of research. In C. Cherryholmes (Ed.), Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education(pp. 99–129). New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity(pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
16. Cumming, A. (1996). Introduction: The concept of validation in language testing. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
17. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype writing tasks for new TOEFL (TOEFL Monograph No. MS-30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. E. (2001). Scoring TOEFL essays and TOEFL 2000 prototype tasks: An investigation into raters’ decision making and development of a preliminary analytic framework (TOEFL Monograph Series, Rep. No. 22). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. E. (2002). Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. Modern Language Journal, 86, 67–96.
20. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Powers, D., Santos, T., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 writing framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 18). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Douglas, D. (1997). Testing speaking ability in academic contexts: Theoretical considerations (TOEFL Monograph No. 8). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
22. Educational Testing Service. (2002). The ETS standards for quality and fairness. Princeton, NJ: Author.
23. Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.
24. Enright, M. K., Grabe, W., Koda, K., Mosenthal, P., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M. (2000). TOEFL 2000 reading framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25. Enright, M. K., & Schedl, M. (1999). Reading to learn and reading to integrate (internal report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
26. Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1996). A review of the academic needs of native English-speaking college students in the United States (TOEFL Monograph No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
27. Hale, G. A., Taylor, C., Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 54). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
28. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1996). TOEFL 2000—Writing: Composition, community, and assessment (TOEFL Monograph No. 5). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
29. Hudson, T. (1996). Assessing second language academic reading from a communicative competence perspective: Relevance for TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph No. 4). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Jamieson, J., Jones, S., Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.
32. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.
33. Kane, M. T. (2004). Certifi cation testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2(3), 135–170.
34. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennen, (Ed.), Educational measurement(4th ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
35. Kunnan, A. J. (1998). Approaches to validation in language assessment. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment(pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.
37. Mislevy, R. J. (2004). Toulmin and beyond: Commentary on Michael Kane’s “Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation,” Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(3), 185–191.
38. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–62.
39. Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229-258.
40. Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.
41. Rosenfeld, M., Leung, P., & Oltman, P. K. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels (TOEFL Monograph No. 21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
42. Rubin, J. (1993). TOEFL 2000: Listening in an academic setting (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
43. Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405–450.
44. Waters, A. (1996). A review of research into needs in English for academic purposes of relevance to the North American higher education context (TOEFL Monograph No. 6). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
45. Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
46. Zhang, Y. (2006, October 13). Statistical review of the TOEFL iBT April-June 2006 administrations. Paper presented at the TOEFL Committee of Examiners Meeting, Philadelphia.