Abstract
The web offers new opportunities to realize some of the current ideals for interactive language assessment by providing learners information about their language ability at their convenience. If such tests are to be trusted to provide learners with information that might help to improve their language ability, the tests need to undergo validation processes, but validation theory does not offer specific guidance about what should be included in a validity argument. Conventional wisdom suggests that low-stakes tests require less rigorous validation than high-stakes tests, but what are the factors that affect decisions about the validation process for either? Attempting to make these contributing factors explicit, this article examines the ways in which the purpose of a low-stakes web-based ESL (English as a second language) test guided its design and the validation process. The validity argument resulting from the first phase of the validation process is illustrated.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 409-439 |
| Number of pages | 31 |
| Journal | Language Testing |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2003 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Language and Linguistics
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
Validation of a web-based ESL test. / Chapelle, Carol A.; Jamieson, Joan M; Hegelheimer, Volker.
In: Language Testing, Vol. 20, No. 4, 01.01.2003, p. 409-439.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation of a web-based ESL test
AU - Chapelle, Carol A.
AU - Jamieson, Joan M
AU - Hegelheimer, Volker
PY - 2003/1/1
Y1 - 2003/1/1
N2 - The web offers new opportunities to realize some of the current ideals for interactive language assessment by providing learners information about their language ability at their convenience. If such tests are to be trusted to provide learners with information that might help to improve their language ability, the tests need to undergo validation processes, but validation theory does not offer specific guidance about what should be included in a validity argument. Conventional wisdom suggests that low-stakes tests require less rigorous validation than high-stakes tests, but what are the factors that affect decisions about the validation process for either? Attempting to make these contributing factors explicit, this article examines the ways in which the purpose of a low-stakes web-based ESL (English as a second language) test guided its design and the validation process. The validity argument resulting from the first phase of the validation process is illustrated.
AB - The web offers new opportunities to realize some of the current ideals for interactive language assessment by providing learners information about their language ability at their convenience. If such tests are to be trusted to provide learners with information that might help to improve their language ability, the tests need to undergo validation processes, but validation theory does not offer specific guidance about what should be included in a validity argument. Conventional wisdom suggests that low-stakes tests require less rigorous validation than high-stakes tests, but what are the factors that affect decisions about the validation process for either? Attempting to make these contributing factors explicit, this article examines the ways in which the purpose of a low-stakes web-based ESL (English as a second language) test guided its design and the validation process. The validity argument resulting from the first phase of the validation process is illustrated.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=21644472011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=21644472011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1191/0265532203lt266oa
DO - 10.1191/0265532203lt266oa
M3 - Article
VL - 20
SP - 409
EP - 439
JO - Language Testing
JF - Language Testing
SN - 0265-5322
IS - 4
ER -