Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Re-examining the content validation of a gramma...
View graph of relations

Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test: the (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test: the (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge. / Alderson, J. C.; Kremmel, B.
In: Language Testing, Vol. 30, No. 4, 01.10.2013, p. 535-556.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{034d03a7a2a645de9573394dfc21c7e5,
title = "Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test: the (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge",
abstract = "“Vocabulary and structural knowledge” (Grabe, 1991, p. 379) appears to be a key component of reading ability. However, is this component to be taken as a unitary one or is structural knowledge a separate factor that can therefore also be tested in isolation in, say, a test of syntax? If syntax can be singled out (e.g. in order to investigate its contribution to reading ability), this test of syntactic knowledge would require validation. The usefulness and reliability of using expert judgments as a means of analysing the content or difficulty of test items in language assessment has been questioned for more than two decades. Still, groups of expert judges are often called upon as they are perceived to be the only or at least a very convenient way of establishing key features of items. Such judgments, however, are particularly opaque and thus problematic when judges are required to make categorizations where categories are only vaguely defined or are ontologically questionable in themselves. This is, for example, the case when judges are asked to classify the content of test items based on a distinction between lexis and syntax, a dichotomy corpus linguistics has suggested cannot be maintained. The present paper scrutinizes a study by Shiotsu (2010) that employed expert judgments, on the basis of which claims were made about the relative significance of the components {\textquoteleft}syntactic knowledge{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}vocabulary knowledge{\textquoteright} in reading in a second language. By both replicating and partially replicating Shiotsu{\textquoteright}s (2010) content analysis study, the paper problematizes not only the issue of the use of expert judgments, but, more importantly, their usefulness in distinguishing between construct components that might, in fact, be difficult to distinguish anyway. This is particularly important for an understanding and diagnosis of learners{\textquoteright} strengths and weaknesses in reading in a second language. ",
keywords = "content analysis, grammar, judgments, reading in a second language, vocabulary",
author = "Alderson, {J. C.} and B. Kremmel",
year = "2013",
month = oct,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0265532213489568",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "535--556",
journal = "Language Testing",
issn = "0265-5322",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test

T2 - the (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge

AU - Alderson, J. C.

AU - Kremmel, B.

PY - 2013/10/1

Y1 - 2013/10/1

N2 - “Vocabulary and structural knowledge” (Grabe, 1991, p. 379) appears to be a key component of reading ability. However, is this component to be taken as a unitary one or is structural knowledge a separate factor that can therefore also be tested in isolation in, say, a test of syntax? If syntax can be singled out (e.g. in order to investigate its contribution to reading ability), this test of syntactic knowledge would require validation. The usefulness and reliability of using expert judgments as a means of analysing the content or difficulty of test items in language assessment has been questioned for more than two decades. Still, groups of expert judges are often called upon as they are perceived to be the only or at least a very convenient way of establishing key features of items. Such judgments, however, are particularly opaque and thus problematic when judges are required to make categorizations where categories are only vaguely defined or are ontologically questionable in themselves. This is, for example, the case when judges are asked to classify the content of test items based on a distinction between lexis and syntax, a dichotomy corpus linguistics has suggested cannot be maintained. The present paper scrutinizes a study by Shiotsu (2010) that employed expert judgments, on the basis of which claims were made about the relative significance of the components ‘syntactic knowledge’ and ‘vocabulary knowledge’ in reading in a second language. By both replicating and partially replicating Shiotsu’s (2010) content analysis study, the paper problematizes not only the issue of the use of expert judgments, but, more importantly, their usefulness in distinguishing between construct components that might, in fact, be difficult to distinguish anyway. This is particularly important for an understanding and diagnosis of learners’ strengths and weaknesses in reading in a second language.

AB - “Vocabulary and structural knowledge” (Grabe, 1991, p. 379) appears to be a key component of reading ability. However, is this component to be taken as a unitary one or is structural knowledge a separate factor that can therefore also be tested in isolation in, say, a test of syntax? If syntax can be singled out (e.g. in order to investigate its contribution to reading ability), this test of syntactic knowledge would require validation. The usefulness and reliability of using expert judgments as a means of analysing the content or difficulty of test items in language assessment has been questioned for more than two decades. Still, groups of expert judges are often called upon as they are perceived to be the only or at least a very convenient way of establishing key features of items. Such judgments, however, are particularly opaque and thus problematic when judges are required to make categorizations where categories are only vaguely defined or are ontologically questionable in themselves. This is, for example, the case when judges are asked to classify the content of test items based on a distinction between lexis and syntax, a dichotomy corpus linguistics has suggested cannot be maintained. The present paper scrutinizes a study by Shiotsu (2010) that employed expert judgments, on the basis of which claims were made about the relative significance of the components ‘syntactic knowledge’ and ‘vocabulary knowledge’ in reading in a second language. By both replicating and partially replicating Shiotsu’s (2010) content analysis study, the paper problematizes not only the issue of the use of expert judgments, but, more importantly, their usefulness in distinguishing between construct components that might, in fact, be difficult to distinguish anyway. This is particularly important for an understanding and diagnosis of learners’ strengths and weaknesses in reading in a second language.

KW - content analysis

KW - grammar

KW - judgments

KW - reading in a second language

KW - vocabulary

U2 - 10.1177/0265532213489568

DO - 10.1177/0265532213489568

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 535

EP - 556

JO - Language Testing

JF - Language Testing

SN - 0265-5322

IS - 4

ER -