The Process of Developing a Reading Test: A Review Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/kecb9678Keywords:
Bloom taxonomy, Cognitive process, Reading skills, Reading comprehension, TestingAbstract
This review article discusses the criteria for developing tests for reading skills. Reading skills are input language skills whichare considered as the most basic skills in language learning.The text focuses on the basic approaches used in developing reading tests, selection criteria of texts and authenticity, selection of test items, and the role of Bloom taxonomy in testing reading skills. Asian journal of language testing, Language testing international,Journal of research in reading,Reading research quarterly, Reading for professional purposes, Journal of reading, Journal of reading behaviour, and Language testing are reviewed to answer the research questions.Discussions are analysed and concluded that the level of the learner, objectives, and text itself decide the types of questions that can be constructed and included in reading tests.Different text may tend to different test items such as true-false, multiple-choice, matching, provide information in the table, and yet to add open- ended questions.
Downloads
References
1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Andrich, D., Humphry, S. M., & Marais, I. (2012). Quantifying local, response dependencebetween two polytomous items using the Rasch model. Applied Psychological Measurement,36(4), 309–324.
3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
4. Campbell, J. R. (2005). A single instrument, multiple measures: Considering the use of multiple item formats to assess reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 347–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Chou, P. T.M. (2011). The effects of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge on reading comprehension of Taiwanese EFL students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 108-115.Comprehension’. Language Testing 4:195-220
6. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relativecontributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading 10(3), 277–299.
7. Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 209–226.
8. Grabe, W. & Stoller, F.L. 2002: Teaching and researching reading. Harlow:Longman.
9. Grellet, F. (1981). Developing reading skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York: Routledge.
11. Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge.
12. Heaton, J. B. (1990). Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers: Writing English Language Tests
(New ed.). London and New York: Longman Group UK Ltd.
13. Hill, C. and Parry, K. (1994) ‘Assessing English language and literacy around the worldin Hill, C. and Parry, K. (eds) From Testing to Assessment. London:
14. Hill, C., & Parry, K. (1994). Models of literacy: the nature of reading tests. From testing to assessment: English as an international language, 7-34.
15. Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. CUP.
16. Jafapur, A. (1987) ‘The short-context technique: an alternative for testing reading comprehension’.
Language Testing 4: 195-220
17. Jahan, K., Shah, S. K., & Ahmad, S. S. (2019). Evaluación de materialesen aulas de lenguainglesa de nivelsecundario. DilemasContemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores, 6.
18. Kintsch, W., & Yarbrough, J. C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6), 828–834.
19. Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19(2), 193–220.
20. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2009). Formal and informal measures of reading comprehension. In S.
E. Israel & G. G Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 403–427). New York: Routledge. Longman.
21. Nation, K., &Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370.
22. Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices: Past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Pulido & Hambrick, (2008), “The virtue Circle: Modeling individual differences in L2 reading and vocabulary development” Reading in a Foreign Language ISSN 1539-0578Volume 20, Number 20,
24. Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language testing, 1(2), 147-170.
25. Spolsky, B. (1985). The limits of authenticity in language testing. Language Testing, 2(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228500200104
26. Van den Broek, P. (2012). Individual and developmental differences in reading comprehension:
Assessing cognitive processes and outcomes. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R.
27. Weir, C. J. (2013). Measured constructs: A history of Cambridge English examinations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Yamashita, J. (2003). Processes of taking a gap-filling test: Comparison of skilled and less skilled EFL readers. Language Testing, 20(3), 267–293.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
