Language Testing and Validation

By C. Weir. 2005

563 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a056b370ddcbe446f9b80689390ea548edae7f61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Yo In’nami
2. Shidur Rahman
3. A. Davies
4. T. Eckes
5. R. Koizumi
6. Lindsay Brooks
7. Frank Giraldo
8. F. Oswald

In Education

1. Yo In’nami
2. Shidur Rahman
3. A. Davies
4. T. Eckes
5. R. Koizumi
6. Lindsay Brooks
7. H. Mohajan

In Language and Linguistics

1. R. Koizumi
2. Yo In’nami
3. Shidur Rahman
4. A. Davies
5. T. Eckes
6. Lindsay Brooks
7. Luke Plonsky
8. F. Oswald

Citations in the corpus

• Textbook trends in teaching language testing (2008, background): “Like Alderson, Clapham and Wall (1995), Weir (2005) is less concerned with skills than with knowledge and in particular with validation.”
• The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review (2016, background): “In language testing, the testers are concerned with the extent to which a test can produce scores that reflect a candidate’s ability accurately in a specific area, for example, reading, writing a critical essay, vocabulary knowledge, or spoken interaction with peers (Weir, 2005).”
• Examining Rater Effects in TestDaF Writing and Speaking Performance Assessments: A Many-Facet Rasch Analysis (2005, background): “…to the construct being assessed through ratings and, thus, threaten the validity of the assessment procedure (Bachman, 2004; Messick, 1989, 1995; Weir, 2005).1 LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT QUARTERLY, 2(3), 197–221 Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Correspondence should be sent to…”
• Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability (2008, background): “Rater variability, or inconsistency between raters, can manifest itself in various forms (see Bachman & Palmer, 1996; McNamara, 1996; Weigle, 2002; Weir, 2005; Lumley, 2005).”
• Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “The co-participants each contribute to the interaction and so the performances are inextricably linked (Luoma, 2004; McNamara, 1997; Weir, 2005) and therefore, variable.”
• A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on multiple-choice and open-ended formats (2009, background): “…Bachman and Palmer (1996), Brown (2005), Clapham and Corson (1997), Cohen (1994), Davies et al. (1999), Davies and Elder (2004), Fulcher and Davidson (2007), ILTA Language Testing Bibliography (1999), Studies in Language Testing series published by Cambridge University Press, and Weir (2005).”
• A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests (2006, unknown): “Given the still controversial nature of the validity of C-test scores, their interpretation and use, the purpose of the present research was to shed light on the construct, or constructs, that C-tests measure (Messick, 1989; 1995; Weir, 2005).”