PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE
ASSESSMENT
Riko Arfiyantama
Ratnawati
Olivia
JOB DESCRIPTION
Speaker I
- Practicality
- Reliability
- Validity
 Speaker II

- Authenticity
- Washback
Speaker III
- Applying principles to the evaluation of classroom
tests
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF A TEST IS
EFFECTIVE?
1. Practicality
2. Reliability
3. Validity
4. Authenticity
5. Washback
PRACTICALLY
An effective test is Practical:
Is not excessively expensive,
 Stays within appropriate time constraints,
 Is relatively easy to administer, and
 Has a scoring/evaluation procedure that is
specific and time-efficient.

RELIABILITY

A reliable test is consistent and dependable. If
you give the same test to the same student or
matched students on two different occasion, the
test should yield similar results.
Test I
First occasion
Test II
Second occasion
THE POSSIBILITIES OF RELIABILITY
The fluctuations in:
The students
Scoring
Test administration
The test itself
STUDENT-RELATED RELIABILITY
The fluctuation in the student can be caused by the
following factors:
 Temporary illness,
 Fatigue
 A “bad day”
 Anxiety
 Other physical and psychological factors
RATER RELIABILITY
The fluctuation in scoring can be caused by the
following factors:
 Human error (teacher’s fatigue)
 Subjectivity
 Bias (good or bad students)
 Lack of attention to scoring criteria
 Inexperience
 Inattention
TEST ADMINISTRATION RELIABILITY
The fluctuation in administration can be caused by
the following factors:
 The condition (place) of the test administration
e.g. listening test becomes unclear because of the
street noise.
 Photocopying variations
 The amount of light in different parts of the
room.
 Variations in temperature.
 The condition of desks and chairs.
TEST RELIABILITY
The fluctuation in the test itself can be caused by
the following factors:
 Time limitation in a test
 The test is administered too long so the testtakers may become fatigue.
VALIDITY
The extent to which inferences made from
assessment results are appropriate, meaningful,
and useful in terms of the purpose of the
assessment. (Gronlund, 1998: 226)
For example:
 A valid test of reading ability actually measures
reading ability.
 A valid test of writing ability actually measures
writing ability not grammar.

CONTENT-RELATED EVIDENCE
The validity of the test depends on the content
and the relation between the purpose of the test
(content) and the way the test is administered
(related) .
For example:
 To get a valid speaking test, the students should
do the direct test by giving the students’ chance
to perform their ability in speaking, not by giving
them paper-and-pencil test.

CRITERION-RELATED EVIDENCE
Criterion-related Evidence usually falls into one of
two categories:
 Concurrent Validity: a test has concurrent
validity if its results are supported by other
concurrent performance beyond the assessment it
self. E.g. a high score of the final exam of a
foreign language course will be sustained by
actual proficiency in the language.
 Predictive Validity: the predictive validity of an
assessment becomes important in the case of
placement tests, admissions assessment
batteries, etc.
The assessment criterion in such cases is not to
measure concurrent ability but to assess (and
predict) a test-taker’s likelihood of future success.
CONSTRUCT-RELATED EVIDENCE

A construct is any theory, hypothesis, or model
that attempts to explain observed phenomena in
our universe of perceptions. For examples:
linguistic construct covers “proficiency” and
“communicative competence”, and psychological
construct covers “self-esteem” and “motivation”.
CONSEQUENTIAL VALIDITY

Consequential Validity encompasses all the
consequences of a test, including such
considerations as its accuracy in measuring
intended criteria, its impact on the preparation of
test-takers, its effect on the learner, and the
(intended and unintended) social consequences of
a test’s interpretation and use. McNamara (2000:
54) cautions against test results that may reflect
socioeconomic conditions such as opportunities
for coaching that are “differentially available to
the students being assessed (for example,
because only some families can afford coaching)”