1 / 12

English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?:

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

jaclyn
Download Presentation

English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?: Yoonsun Lee Director of Assessment and Psychometrics Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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)?

  5. 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)

  6. WLPT-II Test Specifications MC: Multiple choice CR: Constructed response

  7. Confirmatory Factor Analysis • 2006 WLPT-II • Sample: Approximately 15,000 students included in each grade span • EQS (Bentler, 1995) • Four models were examined

  8. Models 1 & 2 E1 E1 Rdg cluster 1 Rdg cluster 1 E4 E4 Rdg cluster 4 Rdg cluster 4 . . . . E5 E5 Wri cluster 1 Wri cluster 1 Language Proficiency Language Proficiency E9 E9 Wri cluster 5 Wri cluster 5 . . . . E10 E10 Lis cluster 1 Lis cluster 1 . . E12 . E12 . Lis cluster 3 Lis cluster 3 Spe cluster 1 Spe cluster 1 E13 E13 . . . . E16 E16 Spe cluster 4 Spe cluster 4

  9. Models 3 & 4 D1 E1 E1 Rdg cluster 1 Rdg cluster 1 . Rdg cluster 4 Rdg cluster 4 E4 E4 . . . Listening Wri cluster 1 Wri cluster 1 E5 E5 Listening Speaking Speaking . E9 Wri cluster 5 Language Proficiency Wri cluster 5 E9 Reading Reading . Writing Writing . D2 D3 Lis cluster 1 E10 E10 Lis cluster 1 . . Lis cluster 3 E12 . . Lis cluster 3 E12 Spe cluster 1 E13 E13 Spe cluster 1 . . . . Spe cluster 4 E16 E16 D4 Spe cluster 4

  10. Results (Primary level)

  11. 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.

  12. 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

More Related