The evolution of the TOEFL

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

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 27-54

  Taylor, Carol A ^a   Angelis, Paul ^b  

^a BIOLA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350521508     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203937891     Document Type: Chapter

References (70)

1. Alderman, D. (1979). TOEFL research agenda (internal TOEFL report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does wash back exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115–129.
3. Angelis, P. (1982). Academic needs and priorities for testing. American Language Journal,1, 41–56.
4. Angelis, P., Swinton, S., & Cowell, W. (1979). The performance of non-native speakers of English on TOEFL and verbal aptitude tests (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 3). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5. Angoff, W. H. (1989). Context bias in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
6. Angoff, W. H., & Sharon, A. T. (1970). A comparison of scores earned on the Test of English as a Foreign Language by Native American college students and foreign applicants to U.S. colleges (ETS Research Bulletin No. RB-70-08). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
7. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Bailey, K. M. (1999). Wash back in language testing (TOEFL Monograph No. 15). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Boldt, R. F. (1988). Latent structure analysis of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 28). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. (1983). Survey of academic writing tasks required of graduate and undergraduate foreign students (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 15). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11. Brown, J. D., Perkins, K., & Upshur, J. (1995). Research recommendations for the TOEFL 2000 project (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12. Burstein, J. C., Kaplan, R. M., Rohen-Wolff, S., Zuckerman, D. I., & Lu, C. (1999). A review of computer-based speech technology for TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph No. 13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
14. Carlson, S., Bridgeman, B., Camp, R., & Waanders, E. (1985). Relationship of admission test scores to writing performance of native and nonnative speakers of English (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. Carroll, J. B. (1961). Fundamental considerations in testing for English proficiency of foreign students. In Testing the English proficiency of foreign students(pp. 31–40). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
16. 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.
17. Chase, C. I., & Stallings, W. M. (1966). Tests of English language as predictors of success for foreign students (Indiana Studies in Prediction No. 8). Bloomington: Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing, Indiana University.
18. Clark, J. L. D. (1977). The performance of native speakers of English on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19. Clark, J. L. D., & Swinton, S. S. (1979). An exploration of speaking proficiency measures in the TOEFL context (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 4). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Clark, J. L. D., & Swinton, S. S. (1980). The Test of Spoken English as a measure of communicative ability in English-medium instructional settings (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 7). 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. Duran, R., Canale, M., Penfield, J., Stansfield, C., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1985). TOEFL from a communicative viewpoint on language proficiency: A working paper (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
23. Educational Testing Service. (1993a). Project plan for TOEFL 2000 (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Author.
24. Educational Testing Service. (1993b). Initial information gathering from TOEFL score users and overview of preliminary findings (internal report to the TOEFL Policy Council). Princeton, NJ: Author.
25. Educational Testing Service. (1994). TOEFL 2000 Stage I task assignments and timeline (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Author.
26. Educational Testing Service. (1998a). 1997–1998 TOEFL volumes and trends. Princeton, NJ: Author.
27. Educational Testing Service. (1998b). Computer-based TOEFL score user guide (1998–1999 ed.) Princeton, NJ: Author.
28. Educational Testing Service. (1999). TOEFL test and score data summary (1998–1999 ed.) Princeton, NJ: Author.
29. Eignor, D., Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., & Jamieson, J. (1998). Development of a scale for assessing the level of computer familiarity of TOEFL examinees (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 60). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Frase, L. T., Gong, B., Hansen, E., Kaplan, R., Katz, I., & Singley, K. (1997). Technologies for language testing (TOEFL Monograph No. 11). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31. Freedle, R. O., & Kostin, I. W. (1996). The prediction of TOEFL listening comprehension item difficulty for minitalk passages: Implications for construct validity (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32. 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.
33. Gough, D. (1993). Trends in international student enrollments in colleges and universities in North America (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
34. Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (1995). TOEFL 2000 score user survey report (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35. Gue, L. R., & Holdaway, E. A. (1973). English proficiency tests as predictors of success in graduate studies in education. Language Learning, 23, 89–103.
36. Hale, G. A. (1988). The interaction of student major-field group and test content in TOEFL reading comprehension. (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 25). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
37. Hale, G. A., & Hinofotis, F. (1981). New directions in English language testing (internal TOEFL Research Committee report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
38. Hale, G. A., Stansfield, C. W., & Duran, R. P. (1984). Summaries of studies involving the Test of English as a Foreign Language, 1963–1982 (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
39. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1996). TOEFL 2000—Writing: Composition, community, and assessment (TOEFL Monograph No. 5). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
40. Hansen, E. G., & Willut, C. K. (1998). Computer and communications technologies in colleges and universities in the year 2000 (TOEFL Monograph No. 12). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
41. Henning, G., & Cascallar, E. (1992). A preliminary study of the nature of communicative competence (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 36). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
42. 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.
43. Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished manuscript, University of Reading, UK.
44. Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Society for Research in Child Development, 35, 1–67.
45. 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.
46. Jamieson, J., Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., & Eignor, D. (1999). Designing and evaluating a computer based TOEFL tutorial (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 62). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
47. Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom(pp. 24–36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., Taylor, C., & Eignor, D. (1998). Computer familiarity among TOEFL examinees (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 59). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
49. Lado, R. (1961). Language testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50. Maxwell, A. A. (1965). A comparison of two English as a foreign language tests. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Davis.
51. McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
52. Nissan, S., DeVincenzi, F., & Tang, K. L. (1996). An analysis of factors affecting the difficulty of dialog items in TOEFL listening comprehension (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 51). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
53. Pack, A. C. (1972). A comparison between TOEFL and Michigan Test scores and student success in (1) freshman English and (2) completing college programs. TESL Reporter, 5, 1–7, 9.
54. Pike, L. (1979). An evaluation of alternative item formats for testing English as a foreign language (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
55. Powell, W. (2001). Looking back, looking forward: Trends in intensive English program enrollments (TOEFL Monograph No. 14). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
56. Powers, D. E. (1985). A survey of academic demands related to listening skills (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
57. Powers, D. E., & Stansfield, C. W. (1983). The Test of Spoken English as a measure of communicative proficiency in the health professions (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
58. Raimes, A. (1990). The TOEFL Test of Written English: Causes for concern. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 427–442.
59. Rubin, J. (1993). TOEFL 2000: Listening in an academic setting (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
60. Schedl, M. (1995). TOEFL 2000 design framework: A working draft (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
61. Schedl, M. A., Thomas, N., & Way, W. D. (1995). An investigation of proposed revisions to section 3 of the TOEFL test (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 47). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
62. Schrader, W. B., & Pitcher, B. (1970). Interpreting performance of foreign law students on the Law School Admission Test and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (Statistical Rep. No. 7025). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
63. Scoon, A. R., & Blanchard, J. D. (1970). The relation of a test of English as a second language to measure intelligence, achievement, and adjustment in a sample of American Indian students. Paper presented at TESOL, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED039530).
64. Taylor, C. (1994). Profile of TOEFL score users and TOEFL examinees (internal TOEFL 2000 report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
65. Taylor, C., Eignor, D., Schedl, M., & DeVincenzi, F. (1995, March). TOEFL 2000: A project overview and status report. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Long Beach, CA.
66. Taylor, C., Jamieson, J., Eignor, D., & Kirsch, I. (1998). The relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based TOEFL test tasks (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 61). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
67. Testing the English language proficiency of foreign students. Report of a conference sponsored by the Center for Applied Linguistics in cooperation with the Institute of International Education and the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers. (1961). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
68. Tucker, G. R. (1986). Closing remarks. In C. Stansfield (Ed.), Toward communicative competence testing: Proceedings of the second TOEFL invitational conference (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
69. Upshur, J. A. (1966). Comparison of performance on “Test of English as a Foreign Language” and “Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
70. 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.