Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "English Language Proficiency Tests, One Dimension or Many?: Yoonsun Lee Director of Assessment and Psychometrics Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction."— 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 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 Grade Span ReadingWritingListeningSpeaking Total Number Primary (K-2) 21MC 15MC 8CR 20MC17CR 81 (112pts) Elementary (3-5) 24MC 20MC 2CR 20MC17CR 83 (110pts) Middle (6-8) 28MC 24MC 2CR 20MC17CR 91 (118pts) High (9-12) 31MC 24MC 2CR 20MC17CR 94 (121pts) MC: Multiple choice CR: Constructed response

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

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

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

10 Results (Primary level) ModeldfGFICFIRMSEA 1 (single with no corr) (single with corr) (four factor) (second order)

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


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google