An Introduction to Generalizability Theory in Second Language Research1
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4894566 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Roger E Bolus (University of California, Los Angeles), Frances B Hinofotis (University of California, Los Angeles), Kathleen M Bailey (Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey) |
| Year | 1982 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 245-258 |
| Publication date | 1982-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Language Learning (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-8333 • E-ISSN: 1467-9922 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1982.tb00970.x |
| OpenAlex | W2042524001 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 24 |
| References cited | 3 |
During the last decade researchers in the area of second language testing have adopted increasingly more sophisticated evaluation techniques in an attempt to better understand the process of learning a second language. Analysis of variance, regression analysis, and factor analysis are among the statistical procedures that have allowed for insightful evaluation of language testing data. This paper explores the feasibility of applying another procedure, generalizability theory analysis, to second language testing research. An earlier paper (Hinofotis, Bailey, and Stern 1981) reported on the development of a rating scale for assessing the oral proficiency of nonnative-speaking teaching assistants and the actual use of the scale by a panel of raters in evaluating pilot data. The data from that study are reanalyzed here using generalizability theory, which provides simultaneous estimates of consistency along several dimensions of the research, e.g., raters, subjects, and occasions. The paper includes a comparison of generalizability theory and classical test theory, an analysis of the oral proficiency data, and a brief discussion involving the interpretation of generalizability study results
Classical test theory · Cognitive psychology · Consistency (knowledge bases) · Developmental psychology · Generalizability theory · Interpretation (philosophy) · Item response theory · Language assessment · Language proficiency · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Natural language processing · Psychometrics · Test theory · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Psychology
Language testing. Part 1
The reliability of single task assessment in longitudinal L2 writing research
What Does Language Testing Have to Offer
Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks
Investigating variability in tasks and rater judgements in a performance test of foreign language speaking
Evaluating analytic scoring for the Toefl® Academic Speaking Test (Tast) for operational use
The use of generalizability theory in investigating the score dependability of classroom-based L2 reading assessment
Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction
A long-term research agenda for the Test of Written English
Statistical aspects of reliability in language testing
The relative importance of persons, items, subtests and languages to Toefl test variance
Local tests, local contexts
Short-cut estimators of criterion-referenced test consistency
Modern language testing at the turn of the century
Investigating the relative effects of persons, items, sections, and languages on Toeic score dependability
A criterion-referenced measurement approach to ESL achievement testing
Task and rater effects in L2 speaking and writing
Generalizability of writing scores
Validity evidence in a university group oral test
Language testing part II
The Measurement of Foreign/Second Language Proficiency
Variables that affect the dependability of L2 pragmatics tests
A Categorical Instrument for Scoring Second Language Writing Skills
Testing Pronunciation
| Unique citing works | 24 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,57 |
| Citation span | 1984 - 2023 (40) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 23 |