Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach

By C. Weir. 2004

630 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8c4749ad4372b064ca988516c2651eaafd02d71

How researchers see this paper

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

1. T. Eckes
2. L. Taylor
3. Lindsay Brooks
4. Ryo Nitta
5. E. Galaczi
6. Yo In’nami
7. Fumiyo Nakatsuhara
8. R. Koizumi

Citations in the corpus

• 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).”
• 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.”
• Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests (2005, background): “To develop tests at different levels of proficiency, however, we need more comprehensive specifications (see, for example, Bachman, 1990; Bachman and Palmer, 1996; Davidson and Lynch, 2002; Weir, 2004).”
• A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance (2014, methodology): “Weir et al.’s (2006) cognitive processing questionnaire was used with some modifications (see Appendix 2).”
• 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).”
• Examining Rater Effects in TestDaF Writing and Speaking Performance Assessments: A Many-Facet Rasch Analysis (2005, background): “In other words, rater effects are irrelevant to the construct being assessed through ratings and, thus, threaten the validity of the assessment procedure (Bachman, 2004; Messick, 1989, 1995; Weir, 2005).”
• 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).”
• Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “competence, as proposed by Kramsch (1986) and more recently He and Young (1998) and Young (2008), argue for a construct that explicitly includes the co-construction of interaction and goes beyond individual ability.”
• Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes (2008, unknown): “As Weir (2005) points out, construct validity should not be seen purely as "a matter of the a posteriori statistical validation," but it also needs to be viewed as an "a priori investigation of what should be elicited by the test before its actual administration" (p.”