In order to facilitate the interpretation of test scores from the TOEIC®Bridge as a measure of English language proficiency, one form of the test was administered to more than 6000 test takers in three South American c ountries — Colombia, Chile and Ecuador. The appropriateness of the TOEIC Bridge test as a measure of English language skill was evaluated using several approaches, such as factor analysis and computation of correla tions between the TOEIC Bridge scores and other measures like local English test scores, student self-assessment scores, and teacher ratings. The evidence collected was generally consistent with the interpretation of TOEIC Bridge scores as indicators of English language competencies for the students examined.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. ( 1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers .
2.
Duke, T., Kao, C., & Vale, D.C. ( 2004, April). Linking self-assessed English skills with the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
3.
Educational Testing Service (n.d.). TOEIC can-do guide: Linking TOEIC scores to activities performed in English. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4.
Gramzow, R.H., Elliot, A.J., Asher, E., & McGregor, H. ( 2003). Self-evaluation bias and academic performance: Some ways and some reasons why. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 41—61.
5.
Gulliksen, H. ( 1950). Theory of mental tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Messick, S. ( 1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
7.
Messick, S. ( 1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741—749.
8.
Moss, P.A. ( 1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 5—12.
9.
Oller, J.W. Jr. ( 1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.
Powers, D.E., & Simpson. A.G. ( 2008). Validating TOEIC Bridge Scores against Teacher and Student Ratings: A Small-Scale Study (ETS RM-08—03). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12.
Roever, C., & Powers, D.E. ( 2005). Effects of Language of Administration on a Self-Assessment of Language Skills (TOEFL Monograph MS-27). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13.
Ross, S. ( 1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15, 1—20.
14.
Shrauger, J.S., & Osberg, T.M. ( 1981). The relative accuracy of self-predictions and judgments by others of psychological assessment, Psychological Bulletin , 90, 322—351.
15.
Tannenbaum, R.J., & Wylie, E.C. ( 2005). Mapping test scores onto the Common European Framework (ETS RR-05—18). Princeton, NJ: Education al Testing Service.
16.
Tannenbaum, R.J., & Wylie, E.C. ( 2008). Linking English language test scores onto the common European framework of reference: An application of standard-setting methodology. TOEFL iBT Report no. iBT-06. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17.
TOEIC Bridge Newsletter, Special Issue (2004). Retrieved 23 July 2008, from http://www.toeic.or.jp/toeic_en/media/pdf/toyota_en.pdf .
18.
Upshur, J. ( 1975). Objective evaluation of oral proficiency in the ESOL classroom. In L. Palmer & B. Spolsky (Eds.), Papers on language testing 1967—1974. Washington, DC: TESOL.
19.
Wilson, K.M. ( 1989). Enhancing the interpretations of a norm-referenced s econd-language test through criterion-referencing: a research assessment of experience in the TOEIC testing context (TOEIC Research Report No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20.
Wilson, K.M. ( 1999). Validating a test designed to assess ESL proficiency at lower developmental levels (ETS RR-99—23). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21.
Woodford, P.E. ( 1982). The Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) . In C. Brumfit (Ed.), English for international communication. Oxford: Pergamon.
