Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brennan, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Colton, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Generalizability Analyses of Work Keys Listening and Writing Tests

Robert L. Brennan

American College Testing

Xiaohong Gao

American College Testing

Dean A. Colton

American College Testing

In this article, univariate and multivariate generalizability theory is employed to examine psychometric characteristics of Listening and Writing tests developed by American College Testing (ACT) for its Work Keys program. For both of these tests, the same tape-recorded messages provide the stimuli for written responses that are evaluated by raters. Of particular concern are the numbers of messages and raters needed for adequate measurement precision. The occurrence of relatively large person-message interactions suggested that several (at least six) messages are probably required. Also, the analyses suggest that it is highly desirable to employ at least two raters. For these sample sizes, however, the multivariate results are less encouraging in part because of correlated errors.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55, No. 2, 157-176 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164495055002001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. Huang
Magnitude of Task-Sampling Variability in Performance Assessment: A Meta-Analysis
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2009; 69(6): 887 - 912.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Gebril
Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all?
Language Testing, October 1, 2009; 26(4): 507 - 531.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
N. Kersting
Using Video Clips of Mathematics Classroom Instruction as Item Prompts to Measure Teachers' Knowledge of Teaching Mathematics
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2008; 68(5): 845 - 861.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Xiaoming Xi
Evaluating analytic scoring for the TOEFL(R) Academic Speaking Test (TAST) for operational use
Language Testing, April 1, 2007; 24(2): 251 - 286.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Y.-W. Lee
Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks
Language Testing, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 131 - 166.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
R. Schoonen
Generalizability of writing scores: an application of structural equation modeling
Language Testing, January 1, 2005; 22(1): 1 - 30.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. W. T. Chiu and E. W. Wolfe
A Method for Analyzing Sparse Data Matrices in the Generalizability Theory Framework
Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 2002; 26(3): 321 - 338.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
R. L. Brennan
Performance Assessments from the Perspective of Generalizability Theory
Applied Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2000; 24(4): 339 - 353.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
G. M. Hurtz and N. R. Hertz
How Many Raters Should be Used for Establishing Cutoff Scores with the Angoff Method? a Generalizability Theory Study
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1999; 59(6): 885 - 897.
[Abstract] [PDF]