English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?: Yoonsun Lee Director of Assessment and...
-
Upload
sterling-broadbent -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?: Yoonsun Lee Director of Assessment and...
English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?:
Yoonsun Lee
Director of Assessment and Psychometrics
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
ELPT Requirements Under NCLB States are required to:- Implement ELD standards- Implement ELP tests that assess skills in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing with an added comprehension measure
- Administer ELP tests annually in grades K-12
- Align ELP tests with academic content standards
- Meet AMAO Title III objectives
More on Title III Measurement Demands AMAO I requires setting target growth
rates in English language proficiency status across years
AMAO II requires setting targets for attaining full English language proficiency across years
States attracted to ELP tests that implement vertical scales
Construct Validity Issue Does it make sense to hypothesize that
English language proficiency test is unidimensional? Or, is it multidimensional with four different domains (reading, writing, speaking, and listening)?
Washington Language Proficiency Test-II (WLPT-II) Developed in 2006 Used Stanford English Language
Proficiency Test (SELP) and added augmented items developed by Washington teachers
Four grade spans (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, & 9-12) Four subtests (Reading, Writing, Listening
& Speaking)
WLPT-II Test Specifications
Grade Span
Reading Writing ListeningSpeakin
gTotal
Number
Primary(K-2)
21MC15MC8CR
20MC 17CR81
(112pts)
Elementary(3-5)
24MC20MC2CR
20MC 17CR83
(110pts)
Middle(6-8)
28MC24MC2CR
20MC 17CR91
(118pts)
High(9-12)
31MC24MC2CR
20MC 17CR94
(121pts)
MC: Multiple choice CR: Constructed response
Confirmatory Factor Analysis- 2006 WLPT-II- Sample: Approximately 15,000 students
included in each grade span- EQS (Bentler, 1995)- Four models were examined
Models 1 & 2 E1
E4
E5
E9
E10
E12
E13
E16
Rdg cluster 1
Rdg cluster 4
Wri cluster 1
Wri cluster 5
Lis cluster 1
Lis cluster 3
Spe cluster 1
Spe cluster 4
Language Proficiency
. .
. .
. .
. .
E1
E4
E5
E9
E10
E12
E13
E16
Rdg cluster 1
Rdg cluster 4
Wri cluster 1
Wri cluster 5
Lis cluster 1
Lis cluster 3
Spe cluster 1
Spe cluster 4
Language Proficiency
. .
. .
. .
. .
Models 3 & 4E1
E4
E5
E9
E10
E12
E13
E16
.
Rdg cluster 1
Rdg cluster 4
Wri cluster 1
Wri cluster 5
Lis cluster 1
Lis cluster 3
Spe cluster 1
Spe cluster 4
Reading
Writing
Listening
Speaking
Language Proficiency
E1
E4
E5
E9
E10
E12
E13
E16
.Rdg cluster 1
Rdg cluster 4
Wri cluster 1
Wri cluster 5
Lis cluster 1
Lis cluster 3
Spe cluster 1
Spe cluster 4
Reading
Writing
Listening
Speaking
D1
D2D3
D4
. .
..
.
. .
. .
. .. .
Results (Primary level)Model df GFI CFI RMSEA
1 (single with no corr)
16896.2 189 0.67 0.75 1.33
2 (single with corr)
2445.4 142 0.95 0.97 0.05
3 (four factor)
5472.14 183 0.88 0.92 0.07
4 (second order)
6192.9 185 0.87 0.91 0.08
2
Results (Primary: K-2)- was examined to compare models.
Model 2 (Single Factor with errors correlated within subtest) produced a good fit to the data.
2
Results (Elementary, Middle, & High School)
- Same result was found in Elementary, Middle, & High School)
- Model 2 showed the best fit to the data (over 0.95 GFI and CFI and below 0.05 RMSEA)
- No significant evidence to threaten construct validity with adding augmented items to the existing language test