پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,230 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,764 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,180,693 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,928,401 |
روایی آزمون و عوامل بوجود آورنده واریانس نامربوط به سازه: بررسی نقش رایانه ،جنسیت، سن، زبان مادری، رشته تحصیلی در نتایج تافل آی بی تی iBT | ||
| پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 8، شماره 1، فروردین 1397، صفحه 139-166 اصل مقاله (291.68 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2018.242996.405 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمد صالحی* 1؛ آرش نعمت زاده2 | ||
| 1دانشگاه صنعتی شریف | ||
| 2دانشگاه شریف | ||
| چکیده | ||
| عوملل متعددی میتوانند در روایی یک آزمون تاثیر داشته باشند. آری ، جیکاب، سورنسون و واکر (2014) از آنها با عنوان عوامل واریانس نامربوط به سازه یاد میکنند. در برخی موارد، رایانه می‌تواند نتایج آزمون‌ها را به حاشیه ببرد و تبدیل به منبع تهدیدی برای روایی آزمون شود. علاوه بر یارانه، جنسیت، سن، زبان مادری و رشته تحصیلی نیز متغیرهایی هستند که میتوانند واریانس نامربوط به سازه تولید کنند. در تحقیق حاضر نمرات آزمون تافل آی بی تی به عنوان متغییر وابسته مورد تحقیق قرار گرفت. بدین منظور، صد نفر به پرسشنامه‌هایی در مورد آشنایی با رایانه و دیدگاهشان نسبت به رایانه پاسخ دادند و نیز در یک تافل آی بی تی شرکت کردند. در مرحله اول، سطح آشنایی با رایانه بررسی شد و در مرحله بعدی دیدگاه شرکت‌کنندگان در مورد رایانه و تأثیر سه متغیر مشخص‌شده (سن، جنسیت و زبان مادری) بر نتایج آزمون موردمطالعه قرار گرفت. نتایج بدست آمده نشان‌دهنده روابط معناداری بین این متغیرها و نمرات آزمون نبود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| رایانه؛ روایی؛ آزمون؛ سازه؛ نامرتبط؛ واریانس | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Construct Irrelevant Factors and Test Validity: Investigating the Relationship among Gender, Age, Mother Tongue, Field of Study and TOEFL IBT ® Results | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Arash Nematzadeh2؛ | ||
| 2Sharif University of Technology | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Ary, Sorensen, and Walker (2014) refer to these factors as construct irrelevant ones. Computer like other innovations has aspects that should be investigated. In some cases, computer can distort the tests results and be a source of threat for test validity (construct irrelevant variance). Besides computer familiarity, other demographical factors such as gender, age, mother tongue and filed of study can be the sources of construct irrelevant variance. Therefore, the researchers chose to analyze the role of these phenomenon in the assessing procedure. In order to do this, one hundred participants answered computer familiarity and attitude toward computer questionnaires and a computer based TOEFL IBT®. At the first step, the level of computer familiarity was investigated and the next stage was related to probing attitude of the participants toward computer and effect of three specified variables (age, gender, and mother tongue) on the test results. Results did not indicate meaningful relation between these variables and test scores. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Computer, Validity, Construct, Irrelevant, Variance | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. Washington, ’ DC: American Psychological Association
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2014). Introduction to research in
education. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Clariana, R., & Wallace, P. (2002). Paper–based versus computer–based assessment: key factors
associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 593-602.
Choi, I. C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a
computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295-320.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.
Cohen, A. (1984). On taking tests: what the students report. Language Testing, 1, 70-81.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field
settings. New York: Rand McNally.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd
ed., pp. 443–507). Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Durndell, A., & Lightbody, P. (1993). Gender and computing: change over time? Computers &
Education, 21(4), 331-336.
Eignor, D. (1999). Selected technical issues in the creation of computer-adaptive tests of second
language reading proficiency. In M. Chalhoub-Deville (Ed), Issues in computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiency (pp. 167-181).UK: Cambridge University Press.
Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span.
Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179-197.
Fulcher, G. (1999). Computerizing an English language placement test. ELT Journal, 53(4), 289-
299.
Geissler, J. E., & Horridge, P. (1993). University students’ computer knowledge and
commitment to learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 347-365.
Geranpayeh, A., & Kunnan, A. J. (2007). Differential item functioning in terms of
age in the certificate in advanced English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4 (2), 190-22.
Hambleton, R. K., (1984). Validating the test score. In R.A. Berk (Ed.), A guide to criterion-
referenced test construction. (pp. 199- 230).Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,.
Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., Taylor, C., & Eignor, D. (1998). Computer familiarity among TOEFL
examinees. ETS Research Report Series, 1998(1), i-23.
Lee, J. A. (1986). The effects of past computer experience on computerized aptitude test
performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(3), 727-733.
Lennon, R. T. (1956). Assumptions underlying the use of content validity. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 16, 294-304.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory: Monograph
Supplement 9. Psychological Reports, 3(3), 635-694.
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501-505.
Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and
evaluation. American Psychologist, 30(10), 955.
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11),
1012.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-
103). New York: Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1993). Foundations of validity: Meaning and consequences in psychological
assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 1993(2), i-18.
Odo, D. M. (2012). Computer familiarity and test performance on a computer-based cloze ESL
reading assessment. Teaching English with Technology, 12(3), 18-35.
Rahman, M. A. (2011). Teacher educators' attitudes towards computer: Perspective
Bangladesh. Available
Rezaee, A., & Salehi, M. (2008). The construct validity of a language proficiency test: A multitrait multimethod approach. TELL, 2 (8), 93-110.
Popham, W. J. (1978). Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Salehi, M. (2011). On the construct validity of the reading section of the university of Tehran
English Proficiency Test. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Literature and Humanities of Tabriz University, 22, 129-160.
Salehi, M. (2012). The construct validity of a test: A triangulation of approaches.Language Testing in Asia. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-2-2-102.Salehi, M., & Bagheri Sanjareh, H. (2013). On the comparability of C-test and cloze test: A
verbal protocol approach. English for Specific Purposes World, 14(39).
Salehi, M. and Tayebi, A. (2012). Differential item functioning in in terms of gender in the
reading sub-section of a high-stakes test. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(1), 135-168.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., Hirsh, H. R., Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., ... &
Zedeck,S. (1985). Forty Questions about Validity Generalization and Meta‐Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38(4), 697-798.
Shulman, L. S. (1970). Reconstruction of educational research. Review of Educational Research,
40(3), 371-396.
Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., & Eignor, D. (1999). Examining the relationship between
computer familiarity and performance on computer‐based language tasks. Language Learning, 49(2), 219-274.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Houndmills,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weir, C., & O’Sullivan, B. Jin Yan and Bax, S. (2007). Does the computer make a difference?
Reaction of candidates to a computer-based versus a traditional hand-written form of the IELTS Writing component: effects and impact. IELTS Research Report, 7, 311-347.
Winter, S. J., Chudoba, K. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1998). Attitudes toward computers: when do they
predict computer use? Information & Management, 34(5), 275-284. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 413 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 637 |
||