The Practicalitv and Efficiencv of Web-Based Placement Testing for College-Level Language Programs

Foreign Language Annals

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 356-365

  Bernhardt, Elizabeth B ^a   Rivera, Raymond J ^a   Kamil, Michael L ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85055303840     PISSN: 0015718X     EISSN: 19449720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02694.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Alderson, J. C. (1988). New procedures for validating proficiency tests of ESP? Theory and practice. Language Testing, 5(2), 220-32.
2. Anastasi, A, & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bachman, L. E (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bachman, L. E, & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Boo, J. (1997). Computerized versus paper-and-pencil assessment of educational development: Score comparability and examinee preferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
6. Bresolin, Jr., M. J. (1984).A comparative study ofcomputer administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in an inpatient psychiatric setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago.
7. Bunderson, V C., Inouye, D. K., & Olsen, J. B. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In L. R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.), (pp. 367-407). Phoenix: Oryx Press.
8. Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Raju, N. S. (1987). Examinee attitudes toward computer-administered ability testing. Computers in Human Behaviol; 3,95-107.
9. Bymes, H. (1990). Priority: Curriculum articulation.Addressing curriculum articulation in the nineties: A proposal. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 281-92.
10. Chalhoub-Deville, M., (Ed.). (1999). Issues in computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Day, C. L. (1999). A predictive validity study of computer adaptive placement tests for Tennessee higher education institutions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1999.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(7-A), 2464.
13. Dimock, l? H., & Cornier F! (1991). The effects of format differ-ences and computer experience on performance and anxiety on a computer-administered test. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24, 119-126.
14. Dyer, H. S. (1947a). Validity of C.E.E.B. placement test in French. College Board Review, 1(1), 12-15.
15. Dyer, H. S. (194%). Validity of the German placement test. College Board Review, 1(l),24-26.
16. Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials ofeducational mea-surement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Goodman,J. E, Freed, B., & McManus, W. (1990). Determining exemptions from foreign language requirements: Use of the Modem Language Aptitude Test. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(2), 131-141.
18. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theov. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
19. Hamilton, L. S., Klein, S. P, & Lorie, W (2000). Using Web-based testing for large-scale assessment. RAND Education Document No. IP-196.
20. Harlow, L. L., & Caminero, R. (1990). Oral testing of beginning language students at large universities: Is it worth the trouble? Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 489-501.
21. Harrel, T. H., Honaker, M. L., Hetu, M., & Obenvager,J. (1987). Computerized versus traditional administration of the multidi-mensional aptitude battery-verbal scale: An examination of relia-bility and validity Computers in Human Behaviol; 3, 129-137.
22. Harrison, A. (1986). A language testing handbook. London: Macmillan.
23. Hughes, A. (1986). A pragmatic approach to criterion-refer-enced foreign language testing. In M. Portal (Ed.), lnnovations in language testing, (pp. 31-40). Philadelphia: NFER-NELSON.
24. Jonassen, D. H. (1986). Effects ofmicro-computer display on a perceptuakognitive task. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas.
25. Klee, C., & Rogers, E. (1989) Status of articulation: Placement, advanced placement credit, and course options. Hispania, 72, 264-74.
26. Kumar, D. (1996). Computers and assessment in science educa-tion. ERIC Digest (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED395770).
27. Kuo, J., & Jiang, X. (1997). Assessing the assessments: The OPI and the SOPI. Foreign Language Annals 30(4), 503-512.
28. Larson, J. W (1989). S-CAPE: A Spanish computerized adaptive exam. In W. E Smith (Ed.), Modern technology inforeign language education: Applications and projects (pp. 277-289). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
29. Levin, T., & Gordon, C. (1989). Effect of gender and computer experience on attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5,68-88.
30. Madsen, H. S. (1991). Computer-adaptive testing of listening and reading comprehension: The Brigham Young approach. In E Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. (pp. 237-257). New York: Newbury House.
31. Mazzeo, J., Druesne, B., Raffeld, I C., Checketts, K. T., & Muhlstein, A. (1991). Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil scores for two CLEP general examinations, (College Board Report 91-5). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
32. Messick, S. (1989). Validity In R. L. Linn (Ed.)., Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education.
33. Powers, D. E., & O’Neill, K. (1992). Inexperience and anxious computer users: Coping with a computer-administered test of aca-demic skills (RR-92-75). Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
34. Shepard, L. E. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
35. Shohamy, E. (1998). Evaluation of learning outcomes in second language acquisition: A multiplism perspective. In Heidi Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 238-261). New York: Modem Language Association.
36. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992a). The development and validation of a simulated oral proficiency interview. Modern LanguageJournal, 76, 129-141.
37. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992b). Research on the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview. System, 20, 34744.
38. Taylor, C.,Jamieson, J., Eignor, D., & Kirsch, I. (1998). The rela-tionship between computerfamiliarity and performance on comput-er-based TOEFL test tasks (Report 61). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
39. Teschner, R. (1990). Spanish speakers semi-and residually native: After the placement test is over. Hispania, 73, 816-22.
40. Van de Vijver, E J. R., & Harsveld, M. (1994). The incomplete equivalence of the paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 852-859.
41. Vispoel, W P., Bleiler, T., Boo, J., Steger-May, K., Lin, C., & Turhan, A. (1997). Computer versus paper-and-pencil assessment of self-concept: Psychometric equivalence and respondent prefer-ences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
42. Ward, T. J., Hooper, S. R., & Hannafin, K. M. (1989). The effects of computerized tests on the performance and attitudes of college students. Jouinal of Educational Computing Research, 5(3), 327-333.
43. Wherritt, I., & Cleary, T. A. (1990). A national survey of Spanish language testing for placement or outcome assessment at B.A.-granting institutions in the United States. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 157-65.
44. Wherritt, I., Cleary, T. A,, & Druva-Roush, C. (1990a). Development and analysis of a flexible Spanish language test for placement and outcome assessment. Hispania, 73, 24-29.
45. Wherritt, I., Cleary, T. A, & Druva-Roush, C. (1990b). The development of a foreign language placement system at the University of Iowa. In Richard Teschner, (Ed.), Assessing foreign language proficiency of undergraduates (pp. 79-92). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
46. Wildgrube, W (1982). Computerized testing in the German Federal Armed Forces: Empirical approaches. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), ltem response theory and computerized adaptive testing con-ference proceedings (pp. 353-359). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
47. Williams, S. B., & Leavitt, H. J. (1947). Prediction of success in learning Japanese. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 164-168.
48. Wise, S. L., Boettcher L. L., Harvey, A. L., & Plake, B. S. (1987). Computer-based testing versus paper-and-pencil testing: Effects of computer anxiety and computer experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Washington, DC.