Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment
In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surv...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Fred S. Tsutagawa [verfasserIn] Yuna Seong [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL - Columbia University Libraries, 2018, 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:16 ; year:2016 ; number:1 ; pages:i-iii |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ068800088 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ068800088 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230309080931.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230228s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.7916/D8DZ1M8T |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ068800088 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a PE1-3729 | |
| 050 | 0 | |a P118-118.7 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Fred S. Tsutagawa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Applied linguistics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Second language acquisition | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Language assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Foreign language acquisition | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Validation frameworks | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Educational tests | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Assessment evaluation | |
| 653 | 0 | |a English language | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Language acquisition | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Yuna Seong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |d Columbia University Libraries, 2018 |g 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii |w (DE-627)1760615196 |x 25762907 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:16 |g year:2016 |g number:1 |g pages:i-iii |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 16 |j 2016 |e 1 |h i-iii | ||
| author_variant |
f s t fst y s ys |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:25762907:2016----::omnaisnaiiysusnoegadeoda |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
PE |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T doi (DE-627)DOAJ068800088 (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng PE1-3729 P118-118.7 Fred S. Tsutagawa verfasserin aut Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation English language Language acquisition Yuna Seong verfasserin aut In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Columbia University Libraries, 2018 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii (DE-627)1760615196 25762907 nnns volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 kostenfrei https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 16 2016 1 i-iii |
| spelling |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T doi (DE-627)DOAJ068800088 (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng PE1-3729 P118-118.7 Fred S. Tsutagawa verfasserin aut Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation English language Language acquisition Yuna Seong verfasserin aut In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Columbia University Libraries, 2018 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii (DE-627)1760615196 25762907 nnns volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 kostenfrei https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 16 2016 1 i-iii |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T doi (DE-627)DOAJ068800088 (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng PE1-3729 P118-118.7 Fred S. Tsutagawa verfasserin aut Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation English language Language acquisition Yuna Seong verfasserin aut In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Columbia University Libraries, 2018 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii (DE-627)1760615196 25762907 nnns volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 kostenfrei https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 16 2016 1 i-iii |
| allfieldsGer |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T doi (DE-627)DOAJ068800088 (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng PE1-3729 P118-118.7 Fred S. Tsutagawa verfasserin aut Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation English language Language acquisition Yuna Seong verfasserin aut In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Columbia University Libraries, 2018 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii (DE-627)1760615196 25762907 nnns volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 kostenfrei https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 16 2016 1 i-iii |
| allfieldsSound |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T doi (DE-627)DOAJ068800088 (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng PE1-3729 P118-118.7 Fred S. Tsutagawa verfasserin aut Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation English language Language acquisition Yuna Seong verfasserin aut In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Columbia University Libraries, 2018 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii (DE-627)1760615196 25762907 nnns volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 kostenfrei https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 16 2016 1 i-iii |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii |
| sourceStr |
In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL 16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii volume:16 year:2016 number:1 pages:i-iii |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation English language Language acquisition |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Fred S. Tsutagawa @@aut@@ Yuna Seong @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760615196 |
| id |
DOAJ068800088 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ068800088</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309080931.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.7916/D8DZ1M8T</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ068800088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">PE1-3729</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P118-118.7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fred S. Tsutagawa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Applied linguistics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Second language acquisition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Language assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Foreign language acquisition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Validation frameworks</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Educational tests</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Assessment evaluation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">English language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Language acquisition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yuna Seong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL</subfield><subfield code="d">Columbia University Libraries, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760615196</subfield><subfield code="x">25762907</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:16</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:i-iii</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">16</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">i-iii</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
P - Language and Literature |
| author |
Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| spellingShingle |
Fred S. Tsutagawa misc PE1-3729 misc P118-118.7 misc Applied linguistics misc Second language acquisition misc Language assessment misc Foreign language acquisition misc Validation frameworks misc Educational tests misc Assessment evaluation misc English language misc Language acquisition Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment |
| authorStr |
Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760615196 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
PE1-3729 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
25762907 |
| topic_title |
PE1-3729 P118-118.7 Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment Applied linguistics Second language acquisition Language assessment Foreign language acquisition Validation frameworks Educational tests Assessment evaluation |
| topic |
misc PE1-3729 misc P118-118.7 misc Applied linguistics misc Second language acquisition misc Language assessment misc Foreign language acquisition misc Validation frameworks misc Educational tests misc Assessment evaluation misc English language misc Language acquisition |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc PE1-3729 misc P118-118.7 misc Applied linguistics misc Second language acquisition misc Language assessment misc Foreign language acquisition misc Validation frameworks misc Educational tests misc Assessment evaluation misc English language misc Language acquisition |
| topic_browse |
misc PE1-3729 misc P118-118.7 misc Applied linguistics misc Second language acquisition misc Language assessment misc Foreign language acquisition misc Validation frameworks misc Educational tests misc Assessment evaluation misc English language misc Language acquisition |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760615196 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760615196 |
| title |
Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ068800088 (DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 |
| title_full |
Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment |
| author_sort |
Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| journal |
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| journalStr |
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| callnumber-first-code |
P |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Fred S. Tsutagawa Yuna Seong |
| container_volume |
16 |
| class |
PE1-3729 P118-118.7 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| doi_str_mv |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
commentaries on validity issues in foreign and second language assessment |
| callnumber |
PE1-3729 |
| title_auth |
Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment |
| abstract |
In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). |
| abstractGer |
In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). |
| abstract_unstemmed |
In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015). |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966 https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Yuna Seong |
| author2Str |
Yuna Seong |
| ppnlink |
1760615196 |
| callnumber-subject |
PE - English Languages |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.7916/D8DZ1M8T |
| callnumber-a |
PE1-3729 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:49:32.033Z |
| _version_ |
1803588649127772160 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ068800088</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309080931.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.7916/D8DZ1M8T</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ068800088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">PE1-3729</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P118-118.7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fred S. Tsutagawa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Commentaries on Validity Issues in Foreign and Second Language Assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In empirical applied linguistics research, the primary goal and concern is to operationalize key variables (i.e., measured constructs) in a valid and reliable way, generate scores for the measured variables through quantitative and/or qualitative means (e.g., various kinds of pre- or posttests, surveys, or coded observations), treat those scores appropriately, and allow for proper hypothesis testing of the research questions under investigation (Purpura, Brown, & Schoonen, 2015, p. 37). If the consequences of the research are “low stakes” in that the participants in the study are generally not directly impacted by the results (i.e., decisions are not made on the results to either advance or demote them in some way), the research can be published, our knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon in question deepened, and the story can essentially end there. But if there are important “high stakes” decisions to be made about the participants based on the results, decisions that can potentially impact their lives directly, it becomes imperative that our procedures and theoretical constructs have been thoroughly examined and are valid. That is why in the subfield of second and foreign language assessment, where high stakes decisions such as university admission or classification as an English language learner (ELL) in the U.S. K-12 public school system do take place based on the various test results, a higher standard needs to be adhered to in the development and implementation of the test instruments, potential interpretations of the results, and any possible subsequent uses of the results. Consequently, in second and foreign language testing, validation frameworks have been thoroughly developed and discussed to ensure that best measurement practices and high professional standards are followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, 2014), and that is why second/foreign language testers subject test scores to rigorous validity evaluation so that claims made about the measured constructs can be deemed meaningful and appropriate for their intended purpose(s), and their intended use and interpretation in decision making can also be justified (Purpura et al., 2015).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Applied linguistics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Second language acquisition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Language assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Foreign language acquisition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Validation frameworks</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Educational tests</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Assessment evaluation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">English language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Language acquisition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yuna Seong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL</subfield><subfield code="d">Columbia University Libraries, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">16(2016), 1, Seite i-iii</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760615196</subfield><subfield code="x">25762907</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:16</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:i-iii</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ1M8T</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/25f708d928b14c71b3da05ff90729966</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8960VGH/download</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2576-2907</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">16</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">i-iii</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4005775 |