Evaluating the validity of a high-stakes ESL test: Why teachers' perceptions matter

TESOL Quarterly

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 628-660

  Winke, Paula ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 82755163676     PISSN: 00398322     EISSN: 15457249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5054/tq.2011.268063     Document Type: Article

References (56)

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. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3. Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
4. Canale, M. (1987). The measurement of communicative competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 8, 67-84. doi: 10.1017/S0267190500001033.
5. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9.
6. Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
7. Chapelle, C. A. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254-272. doi: 10.1017/S0267190599190135.
8. Choi, K., Seltzer, M., Herman, J., & Yamashiro, K. (2007). Children left behind in AYP and non-AYP schools: Using student progress and the distribution of student gains to validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 21-32. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00098.x.
9. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
10. Crocker, L. (2002). Stakeholders in comprehensive validation of standards-based assessments: A commentary. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 5-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00132.x.
11. Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.
12. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy (pp. 147-171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
13. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87-106. doi: 10.1007/s10993-004-6566-2.
15. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Haertel, E. H. (2002). Standard setting as a participatory process: Implications for validation of standards-based accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 16-22.
17. Harcourt Assessment, Inc. (2006). 2006 MI-ELPA technical manual [Electronic version] Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MIELPA_Tech_Report_final_199596_7.pdf
18. Hill, R. K., & DePascale, C. A. (2003). Reliability of No Child Left Behind accountability designs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 12-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00133.x.
19. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20. Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf
21. Kane, M. J. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21, 31-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00083.x.
22. Kearney, K. A., Hopkins, R. H., Mauss, A. L., & Weisheit, R. A. (1984). Self-generated identification codes for anonymous collection of longitudinal questionnaire data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 370-378. doi: 10.1086/268832.
23. Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
24. Lane, S. (2004). Validity of high-stakes assessment: Are students engaged in complex thinking? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23, 6-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00160.x.
25. Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 23-30.
26. Lazarín, M. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for English language learners in the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
27. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 5-21.
28. McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
30. McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
31. Menken, K. (2008). Standardized testing as language policy: English language learners left behind. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
32. Messick, S. (1980). Test validation and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012.
33. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York, NY: American Council on Education & Macmillan.
34. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-23.
35. Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x.
36. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 241-256. doi: 10.1177/026553229601300302.
37. Moss, P. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 6-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00826.x.
38. Norris, J. M. (2008). Validity evaluation in language assessment. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
39. Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., & Trimble, C. S. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 32-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00021.x.
40. Pukett, M. B., & Black, J. K. (2000). Authentic assessment of the young child. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
41. Roberts, M., & Manley, P. (2007). Planning for the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/S07_Planning_For_The_ELPA_184193_7.ppt
42. Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 7-15.
43. Schmidt, R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
44. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
45. Shohamy, E. (2000). Fairness in language testing. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 15-19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
47. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
48. Stansfield, C. W., Bowles, M. A., & Rivera, C. (2007). Case studies of state policies and practices concerning test translation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Stansfield, C. W., & Rivera, C. (2001). Test accommodations for LEP students. College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
50. Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). PUBLIC LAW 107-110-JAN. 8, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
52. U.S. Department of Education. (2004a). Fact sheet: NCLB provisions ensure flexibility and accountability for limited English proficient students. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/factsheet-english.html
53. U.S. Department of Education. (2004b). Testing: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testing-faq.html Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, June 4). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Time, 35-40.
54. Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the "age of accountability." Educational Policy, 18, 142-168. doi: 10.1177/0895904803260030.
55. Zehr, M. A. (2006). 'No Child' effect on English-learners mulled. Education Week, 25, 1, 14-15.
56. Zehr, M. A. (2007). A balancing act: NCLB's renewal, English-learners. Education Week, 26, 9.