Journals / IOJET / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES OBTAINED FROM FOREIGN LANGUAGE TESTS ACCORDING TO ITEM RESPONSE THEORY VS CLASSICAL TEST THEORY

Journal
IOJET
Pages
471–485
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, it was concluded that the two assessment theories (CTT focuses on measurement errors while the IRT focuses on individual traits) could let test designers obtain valid and reliable measurement scores, while the latter approach was observed to be slightly better at testing language achievement and/or proficiency.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Foreign language testing is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and obtaining objective and error-free scores on learners’ language skills is often problematic.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While assessing foreign language performance on high-stakes tests, using different testing approaches including Classical Test Theory (CTT), Generalizability Theory (GT) and/or Item Response Theory (IRT) may help both to obtain results closer to true scores on students’ proficiency levels and to minimize the amount of measurement error on test results, depending on item parameters, testing objectives and the amount of time and resources for valid and reliable evaluation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, it was concluded that the two assessment theories (CTT focuses on measurement errors while the IRT focuses on individual traits) could let test designers obtain valid and reliable measurement scores, while the latter approach was observed to be slightly better at testing language achievement and/or proficiency.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2032 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Foreign language testing is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and obtaining objective and error-free scores on learners’ language skills is often problematic. While assessing foreign language performance on high-stakes tests, using different testing approaches including Classical Test Theory (CTT), Generalizability Theory (GT) and/or Item Response Theory (IRT) may help both to obtain results closer to true scores on students’ proficiency levels and to minimize the amount of measurement error on test results, depending on item parameters, testing objectives and the amount of time and resources for valid and reliable evaluation. In this study, two popular testing theories the CTT and IRT were compared in testing language proficiency. Multi-dimensionality of two multiple-choice language tests taken by 2032 low-int and intermediate level language students in the spring term of 2018-2019 academic year was examined via CTT and IRT. In the first step of the analyses, the dimensionality test results revealed that test results were multidimensional. As a result of the NOHARM test, carried out to analyze which IRT model the data fit finest, it was determined that the test data fit the 3- parameter-logistic model. Eventually, it was determined that the correlation coefficients between foreign language proficiency estimations based on the CTT and IRT varied between 0.806 and 0.891. Thus, it was concluded that the two assessment theories (CTT focuses on measurement errors while the IRT focuses on individual traits) could let test designers obtain valid and reliable measurement scores, while the latter approach was observed to be slightly better at testing language achievement and/or proficiency.

🔖

Cite This Article

POLAT, M. (2022). COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES OBTAINED FROM FOREIGN LANGUAGE TESTS ACCORDING TO ITEM RESPONSE THEORY VS CLASSICAL TEST THEORY. IOJET, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 471–485. https://ajindex.com/articles/542139

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akyildiz, M. & Sahin, M. D. (2017). Açık öğretimde kullanılan sınavlardan Klasik Test Kuramına ve Madde Tepki Kuramına göre elde edilen yetenek ölçülerinin karşılaştırılması. Açık öğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3 (4), 141-159.
  2. Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (2002). Psychological testing. Prentice Hall: New York. Bachman, L. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). Mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6). Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 233-255.
  4. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory, (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/ Thomson Learning. Çetin, B. (2019).
  5. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme, Anı Yayıncılık. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016).
  6. Multivariate statistics, SPSS and lyrical applications for social sciences (4th Edition). Ankara:
  7. Pegem Academy. Donlon, G. (1984). The college board technical handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and achievement tests. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement, 1 st Edition.
  8. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ellis, D., & Ross, S. (2014). Item response theory in language testing. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment, Vol. 3. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 367-381.
  9. Gelbal, S. (1994). p madde güçlük indeksi ile Rasch modelinin b parametresi ve bunlara dayalı yetenek ölçüleri üzerine bir karşılaştırma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10, 85‐94. Hambleton, R., & Dirir, M. (2003). Classical and modern item analysis. In FernándezBallesteros (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of psychological assessment (pp. 188–192).
  10. London, UK: Sage Publications. Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues a