Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T13:45:33.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Rater, Item and Candidate Effects in Discourse Completion Tests: A FACETS Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

Eva Alcón Soler
Affiliation:
Universitat Jaume I
Alicia Martínez-Flor
Affiliation:
Universitat Jaume I
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Testing second language (L2) learners' knowledge of speech acts productively through discourse completion tests (DCTs) is complicated by the need for rating responses. Not only does this require a significant outlay of resources, but the rating process itself introduces additional variance into scores as the measurement of learners' ability and of the difficulty of items is mediated by the raters. It is therefore desirable in practice that ratings are consistent, but it is just as important to understand inconsistencies and improve rater training to preempt them.

A useful tool for understanding the relationship between test-taker ability, rater judgments and item difficulty is many-facet Rasch measurement (MFRM), implemented in the program FACETS. This paper applies MFRM to data from a productive speech act test.

Testing Knowledge of L2 Speech Acts

Work on speech acts has been a central feature of acquisition and assessment research in interlanguage pragmatics. Assessment studies are more recent, with the first large-scale test development and validation study by Hudson et al. (1995) actually being a method comparison study, which employed traditional written DCTs, oral DCTs, multiple-choice DCTs, roleplays and self-assessments with Japanese ESL learners in Hawai'i. Their study was replicated by Yoshitake (1997) and adapted for English-speaking learners of Japanese by Yamashita (1996). Brown (2001) shows that the reliability of all the instruments was acceptable except the multiple-choice DCT, which had been especially difficult to construct due to the challenges of writing distractors that were clearly unacceptable but still attractive. This is a somewhat unfortunate finding, as the multiple-choice DCT was the instrument with the greatest practicality. Written and oral DCTs were less practical because they required human raters but could at least be administered to groups of test takers.

Information

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×