Search

Computer-based test (CBT) and paper-based test (PBT) are two test modes to the test takers that have been widely adopted in the field of language testing or assessment over the last few decades. Due to the rapid development of science and technology, it is a trend for universities and educational institutions striving rather hard to deliver the test on a computer. Therefore, research on the comparison between these two test modes has attracted much attention to investigate whether the PBT could be completely replaced. At the same time, task difficulty is always a key element to reflect test takers' performances. Numerous studies have laid a solid foundation and guidance about the comparative study of test takers' performance on CBT and PBT, but there still remains a scarcity from the perspective of task difficulties with different Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) task levels in particular. This study, therefore, compared the test takers' performance on both CBT and PBT across tasks with different CEFR levels. A total of 289 principal recommended high school test takers from Macau took the pilot Test of Academic English (TAE) at a local university. The results indicated that there was a difference between test takers' performance on different test modes across different CEFR levels, but only CEFR A2 level showed a statistically difference between CBT and PBT. And since science and technology are continuously developing, it is essential for the university to consider switching the test mode from PBT to CBT.

The Duolingo English Test, a language proficiency test offered online, is now getting prevalent worldwide. A recap of existing literature denotes that there is an insufficient examination of the DET, particularly on its issues of fairness. Besides, empirical test fairness research had mainly focused on the objective aspect but may have overlooked the importance of its subjective aspect. Additionally, compared with in-person tests, the fairness research of at-home tests lags far behind. Therefore, the current study investigated the DET fairness from test takers' perspectives. A DET Fairness Questionnaire based on (Kunnan's AJ, 2004) Test Fairness Framework (comprising validity, absence of bias, access, administration, and social consequences) was developed. Data were collected from 1,012 Chinese university students and processed through descriptive and factor analyses. The descriptive analyses revealed that test takers perceived the DET to be fair overall. Specifically, they perceived that they had equal access to the test, but the test was invalid; the factor analyses showed that test takers' perceptions of DET fairness (especially perceived validity and access) had a significant effect on their test performance. Such findings suggest that the subjective test fairness as an essential component could not be neglected in appraising an assessment as it influences test takers' performance, and DET developers may strive harder to enhance the validity of DET to provide a fairer testing environment for test takers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis is always an indispensable methodology for detecting item and test bias in the arena of language testing. This study investigated grade-related DIF in the General English Proficiency Test-Kids (GEPT-Kids) listening section. Quantitative data were test scores collected from 791 test takers (Grade 5 = 398; Grade 6 = 393) from eight Chinese-speaking cities, and qualitative data were expert judgments collected from two primary school English teachers in Guangdong province. Two R packages "difR" and "difNLR" were used to perform five types of DIF analysis (two-parameter item response theory [2PL IRT] based Lord's chi-square and Raju's area tests, Mantel-Haenszel [MH], logistic regression [LR], and nonlinear regression [NLR] DIF methods) on the test scores, which altogether identified 16 DIF items. ShinyItemAnalysis package was employed to draw item characteristic curves (ICCs) for the 16 items in RStudio, which presented four different types of DIF effect. Besides, two experts identified reasons or sources for the DIF effect of four items. The study, therefore, may shed some light on the sustainable development of test fairness in the field of language testing: methodologically, a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was adopted to guide further test fairness research using flexible methods to achieve research purposes; practically, the result indicates that DIF analysis does not necessarily imply bias. Instead, it only serves as an alarm that calls test developers' attention to further examine the appropriateness of test items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is not uncommon for immigration-seekers to be actively involved in taking various language tests for immigration purposes. Given the large-scale and high-stakes nature those language tests possess, the validity issues (e.g., appropriate score-based interpretations and decisions) associated with them are of great importance as test scores may play a gate-keeping role in immigration. Though interest in investigating the validity of language tests for immigration purposes is becoming prevalent, there has to be a systematic review of the research foci and results of this body of research. To address this need, the current paper critically reviewed 11 validation studies on language assessment for immigration over the last two decades to identify what has been focused on and what has been overlooked in the empirical research and to discuss current research interests and future research trends. Assessment Use Argument (AUA) framework of Bachman and Palmer (2010), comprising four inferences (i.e., assessment records, interpretations, decisions, and consequences), was adopted to collect and examine evidence of test validity. Results showed the consequences inference received the most investigations focusing on immigration-seekers' and policymakers' perceptions on test consequences, while the decisions inference was the least probed stressing immigration-seekers' attitude towards the impartiality of decision-making. It is recommended that further studies could explore more kinds of stakeholders (e.g., test developers) in terms of their perceptions on the test and investigate more about the fairness of decision-making based on test scores. Additionally, the current AUA framework includes only positive and negative consequences that an assessment may engender but does not take compounded consequences into account. It is suggested that further research could enrich the framework. The paper sheds some light on the field of language assessment for immigration and brings about theoretical, practical, and political implications for different kinds of stakeholders (e.g., researchers, test developers, and policymakers). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]