2018 1 200 FOREIGN LANGUAGE RESEARCH 2018 No. 1 Serial No. 200 * 276826 100089 50 3 H319 A DOI 10. 16263 /j. cnki. 23-1071 /h. 2018. 01. 015 1000-0100 2018 01-0097 - 6 Validity and Fairness in Language Assessment Jiang Xiu-juan Qufu Normal University Qufu 276826 China Beijing Foreign Studies University Beijing 100089 China Validity has been regarded as the key element of any assessment and fairness plays a very important role in achieving high validity. Based on the conceptual changes of validity and changes in the modes of validation this paper deals with the evolution of fairness studies in language assessment over the past 50 years from the following three perspectives categorized unitary and argumentative validity concepts. It reveals that the methods and contents in the study of fairness are nearly the same as those in the study of validity and validation and the assessment experts have different views towards the necessity of the fairness exploration in language assessment. According to the analysis above the paper summarizes the relationship between the two and points out what the further studies should explore thoroughly in the future. Key words language assessment validity fairness 1 20 60 80 90 Zieky 2006 360 3 359 80 2 20 50 2013 412 * 16CZWJ29 97
2018 1 1954 APA Technical Recommendations for Psychological Educational Testing Service ETS Tests and Diagnostic Techniques 4 1986 predictive validity concurrent validity content validity construct validity 1966 Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals AERA et al. criterion-related 20 80 validity 1961 Lado Language Testing 3 20 80 Lado Valette 1967 Harris Messick 1988 1989 unitary 1969 Heaton 1975 Finocchiaro Sako 1983 Heaton 1975 153 concept of validity Lado progressive matrix 1 1 Lado 1961 + / 328-329 2013 413 Messick 1989 20 4 Messick construct-irrelevant Messick bias AERA et al. 1985 Bachman Palmer 1996 test bias test usefulness framework Messick re- liability authenticity interactiveness impact practicality 6 McNamara Roever 2006 82 Differential Item Functioning DIF DIF DIF 98
2018 1 3 5 Weigle 2002 Context Framework Messick 1989 Kunnan the Naturalization Test 3 1999 1 2 3 construct under-representation construct-irrele- 3 Kunnan vant variance 20 50 Bachman Palmer 1996 6 2000 Kunnan Messick Jensen 1980 Kunnan 2004 JCTP 1988 1999 5 Bachman 2005 Kunnan 2009 Xi 3 2010 4 1999 Kunnan AERA et al. 1999 9 Kunnan 2000 5 2004 Kunnan 2009 Kunnan the Test 2000 99
2018 1 Kane 1992 2002 2004 2006 Kane et al. 1999 Mislevy et al. 2002 2003 5 Toulmin 2003 practical 6 reasoning model 1 argument-based approach to validation 156-157 Xi 2010 Domain definition Evaluation Generalization Explana- 4 tion Extrapolation Utilization 6 Toulmin 2003 counter-evi- 1 Toulmin dence Toulmin 2003 97 Xi 2010 158-164 Xi TOEFL ibt Kane 2006 interpretive argument validity argument 4 Xi 2010 165 2 Bachman Palmer 2010 Assessment Use Argument AUA 3 2 Kane 2006 Bachman 2005 Xi 2010 Fairness Argument Framework Xi Xi 2010 154 Xi TOEFL ibt 155 Xi 6 sub-argument 1 3 AUA Bachman Palmer 2010 91 2 3 100
2018 1 6 4 Xi 2010 165 5 3 2010 Davies How do we go about investigating test fairness Xi 2010 1999 Davies 2010 173-175 Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education 2004. J. 2013 5. AERA APA NCME. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Z. Washington American Psycho- 4 logical Association 1985. Kunnan 2000 AERA APA NCME. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Z. Washington American Psycho- 3 Kunnan logical Association 1999. 2004 3 5 APA. Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques J. Psychological Bulletin Supplement 1954 51. com- APA AERA NCME. Standards for Educational and Psy- parable validity Willingham Cole 1997 6-7 chological Tests and Manuals Z. Washington Ameri- can Psychological Association 1966. 101
2018 1 Bachman L. Building and Supporting a Case for Test Use J. Language Assessment Quarterly 2005 2. Bachman L. Palmer A. Language Testing in Practice M. Oxford OUP 1996. Bachman L. Palmer A. Language Assessment in Practice Developing Language Assessment and Justifying Their Use in the Real World M. Oxford OUP 2010. Davies A. Test Fairness A Response J. Language Testing 2010 27. Finocchiaro M. Sako S. Foreign Language Testing A Practical Approach M. New York Regents Publishing Company 1983. Harris D. Testing English as a Second Language M. New York McGraw-Hill 1969. Heaton J. Writing English Language Test M. London Longman 1975. Jensen H. R. Bias in Mental Testing M. New York Free Press 1980. Joint Committee on Testing Practices JCTP. Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education Z. Washington American Psychological Association 1988. Joint Committee on Testing Practices JCTP. Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education Z. Washington American Psychological Association 2004. Kane M. An Argument-based Approach to Validity J. Psychological Bulletin 1992 112. Kane M. Validating High-stakes Testing Programs J. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice 2002 21. Kane M. Certification Testing as an Illustration Argumentbased Validation J. Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 2004 2. Kane M. Validation A. In Brennan R. Ed.. Educational Measurement C. Westport Greenwood Publishing 2006. Kane M. Crooks T. Cohen A. Validating Measures of Performance J. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice 1999 18. Kunnan A. J. Fairness and Justice for All A. In Kunnan A. J. Ed. Fairness and Validation in Language Assessment Selected Papers from the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium Orlando Florida Studies in Language Testing 9 C. Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2000. Kunnan A. J. Test Fairness A. In Milanovic M. Weir C. Eds. European Language Testing in a Global Context Proceedings of the ALTE Barcelona Conference C. Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004. Kunnan A. J. Testing for Citizenship The U. S. Naturalization Test J. Language Assessment Quarterly 2009 6. Lado R. Language Testing M. London Longman 1961. McNamara T. F. Roever C. Language Testing The Social Dimension M. Oxford Blackwell 2006. Messick S. The Once and Future Issues of Validity Assessing the Meaning and Consequences of Measurement A. In Wainer H. Braun H. I. Eds. Test Validity C. Hillsdale Lawrence Erlbaum 1988. Messick S. Validity A. In Linn R. L. Ed. Educational Measurement C. New York American Council on Education and Macmillan 1989. Mislevy R. Steinberg L. Almond R. Design and Analysis in Task-based Language Assessment J. Language Testing 2002 19. Mislevy R. Steinberg L. Almond R. On the Structure of Educational Assessments J. Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 2003 1. Toulmin S. The Use of Argument Updated Edition M. Cambridge CUP 2003. Valette R. Modern Language Testing M. New York Harcourt Brace & World 1967. Weigle S. Assessing Writing M. Cambridge CUP 2002. Willingham W. W. Cole N. Gender and Fair Assessment M. Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1997. Xi X. How Do We Go about Investigating Test Fairness J. Language Testing 2010 27. Zieky M. Fairness Review in Assessment A. In Downing S. Haladyna T. Eds. Handbook of Test Development C. Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum 2006. 2017-11 - 21 102