Frameworks for a new TOEFL

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

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 55-95

  Jamieson, Joan M ^a   Grabe, William ^a   Eignor, Daniel ^b   Kunnan, Antony John ^c  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925756281     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203937891     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

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. Angelis, P., & Chapelle, C. (1999). TOEFL 2000: An integrated measure of academic language ability. Unpublished manuscript.
3. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. 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.
5. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Biber, D. (1992). On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 15, 133–163.
7. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9–48.
9. Biber, D., Conrad, S. M., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., et al. (2004). Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus (TOEFL Monograph No. 25). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Brossell, G. (1986). Current research and unanswered questions in writing assessment. In K. Greenberg, H. Wierner, & R. Donovan (Eds.), Writing assessment: Issues and strategies(pp. 168–182). New York: Longman.
11. Brown, G. (1995). Dimensions of difficulty in listening comprehension. In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 59–73). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press, Inc.
12. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Buck, G. (1997). Testing listening skills. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and education: Vol 7. Language testing and assessment(pp. 65–74). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. 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. 10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. 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.
16. Carey, P. A. (1996). A review of psychometric and consequential issues related to performance assessment (TOEFL Monograph No. 3). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Carver, R. P. (1992). Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of Reading, 36, 84–95.
18. Carver, R. P. (1997). Reading for one second, one minute, or one year form the perspective of Rauding theory. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 3–43.
19. 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.
20. Davis, T. M. (Ed.). (1995). Open doors 1994/95: Report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of International Education.
21. Eignor, D. (1999). Selected technical issues in the creation of computer-adaptive tests of second language reading profi ciency. In M. Chaloub-Deville (Ed.), Issues in computer-adaptive testing of reading profi ciency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. 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.
23. Enright, M. K., & Schedl, M. (2000). Reading for a reason: Using reader purpose to guide test design. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24. Goldman, S. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.
25. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley Press.
26. Guthrie, G. T. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 178–199.
27. Guthrie, J. T., & Kirsch, I. S. (1987). Distinctions between reading comprehension and locating information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 220–227.
28. Guthrie, J. T., & Mosenthal, P. (1987). Literacy as multidimensional: Locating information and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 22, 279-297.
29. 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.
30. Hansen, C. (1994). Topic identification in lecture discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening(pp. 131-145). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Hidi, S., & McLaren, J. (1990). The effect of topic and theme interestingness on the production of school expositions. In H. Mandl, E. DeCorte, N. Bennet, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction in an international context (vol. 2.2, pp. 295-308). Oxford: Pergamon.
32. 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.
33. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Kirsch, I., & Jungeblut, A. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of America’s young adults (NAEP Rep. No. 16-PL-01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35. Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., & Mosenthal, P. B. (1998). The measurement of adult literacy. In T. S. Murray, I. S. Kirsch, & L. B. Jenkins (Eds.), Adult literacy in OECD countries: Technical report on the First International Adult Literacy Survey (NCES 98-053; pp. 105 -134). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36. Kirsch, I., & Mosenthal, P. (1990). Exploring document literacy: Variables underlying the performance of young adults. Reading Research Quarterly,25, 5–30.
37. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer-Verlag.
38. Mislevy, R. J. (1995). Test theory and language-learning assessment. Language Testing, 12, 341–369.
39. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159–176.
40. Muraki, E., & Bock, D. (1999). PARSCALE 4—IRT scaling, item analysis, and scoring or rating scale data [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, Inc.
41. Perfetti, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics and reading ability. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics(pp. 849–894). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. Perfetti, C. (1997). Sentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23, 337–355.
43. Perfetti, C., van Dyke, J., & Hart, L. (2001). The psycholinguistics of basic literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 127–149.
44. 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.
45. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.
46. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Stocking, M. L., Swanson, L., & Pearlman, M. (1993). Application of an automated item selection method to real data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151–168.
49. Tang, K. L. (1996). Polytomous item response theory models and their applications in large-scale testing programs: Review of literature (TOEFL Monograph No. 2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
50. Tang, K. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1997). Concurrent calibration of dichotomously and polytomously scored TOEFL items using IRT models (TOEFL Technical Rep. No. 13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
51. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54.
52. Turner, C., & Upshur, J. (1996). Developing rating scales for the assessment of second language performance. In G. Wigglesworth & C. Elder (Eds.), The language testing cycle: From inception to washback [Special issue]. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 13, 55–79.
53. Wainer, H., & Eignor, D. (2000). Caveats, pitfalls, and unexpected consequences of implementing large-scale computerized testing. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer(2nd ed., pp. 271–299). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. 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.
55. Young, L. (1994). University lectures—Macro-structures and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening(pp. 159–176). New York: Cambridge University Press.