Abstract
A Rasch-based approach for comparison of English reading comprehension between two important English language tests, i.e., The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) in Taiwan and College English Test (CET) in China mainland. A total of 141 students of non-English majors of Jiaxing University were chosen to take a reading comprehension test with mixed test items from both GEPT and CET. There were three passages with 15 questions from GEPT (High-intermediate) and three passages with 15 questions from CET (Band 4), respectively, totalling to 30 questions. All the data were collected and processed using GiTest 3+, comparing both student ability and test difficulty. The results show that the test has a mean score of 16.39, with 55 % of the answers correct, indicating it is a medium-level test, and the standard deviation is 3.66 against the expected standard deviation of 4.48, having a range of 17, indicating that the scores are well distributed. On the whole, the distribution of the scores is negatively skewed. The standard error of measurement is ±2.34. The reading comprehension test items of both examinations are well moderated and thus well calibrated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Some language developers have different views from Bachman on language ability, regarding it as a holistic, unitary ability.
- 2.
Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC). (2012). The General English Proficiency Test:Level Descriptors. https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT/hi_intermediate.htm.
References
Alderson, C. (1983). The cloze procedure and proficiency in english as a foreign language. In J. W. Oller Jr (Ed.), Issues in language testing research. Newsbury House: Rowley.
Alderson, J. C. (1990). Testing reading comprehension skills (part two) getting students to talk about taking a reading test (a pilot study). Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 465–503.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice:designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1999). Language testing in practice. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erblaum. ISBN-13: 978-0805842524 and ISBN-10: 0805842527
Cai, J. G. (2006). Exploring the reform of CET in China from the perspective of the reform of STEP in Japan. Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, 1, 41–56.
Engelhard, G. (Jr.) (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York and London: Routledge Academic.
Gong, Y. (2002). Comparative Studies of GEPT and PETS in Taiwan and China. Selected papers from the eleventh international symposium on english teaching/fourth pan-asian conference.
Heaton, J. B. (2000). Writing english language Tests. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Jin, Y., & Wu, J. (1998). Investigating the validity of reading test in CET through introspection. Foreign Language World, 2, 47–52.
Kong, W. (2011). Validating the TEM4 reading tasks from the verbal report data collected from students’ think-aloud protocol. Foreign Language Testing and Teaching, 3, 1–13.
Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC). (2015). The general english proficiency test: Level descriptors. [Online] available: https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT.htm (March 6, 2015)
Li, G. M., & Zeng, Y. Q. (2011). A study of construct validity of communicative language ability. Modern Foreign Languages, 4, 389–396.
Li, L. R., & Luo, S. Q. (2014). Development and validation of a test measuring language analytic ability for chinese fl learners: A Rasch-based pilot study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 194–212.
Li, X., Xiu, X. D., & Su, F. Y. (2014). A comparative study of cognitive validity of question types in the NEMT and IELTS reading tests. Ludong University Journal, 5, 64–68.
Liu, J. D. (1998). The effects of various test methods on the test takers’ performance in reading testing. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2, 48–52.
Shi, Y. L. (2015). Investigating construct validity of long reading-matching item in CET4 through analyzing the test takers’ think-aloud verbal reports. Foreign Language Testing and Teaching, 1, 24–31.
Wu, Mei. (2012). Comparing PETS and GEPT in China and Taiwan. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 48–51.
Zhang, Q. (2013). A pilot study based on Rasch into the appropriateness of the TOEIC bridge test for Chinese students: Status quo and prospect. In Q. Zhang & H. Yang (Eds.), Pacific rim objective measurement symposium 2012 conference proceeding. Germany: Springer.
Zou, S., Zhang, Y. L., & Zhou, Y. M. (2002). A study of potential relationships among question types, test takers’ reading strategies and their reading test scores—An attempt to further validate TEM4 reading tests. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 5, 19–22.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and our foreign counterparts for suggestions that greatly helped improve the paper. Our thanks also go to Prof. Zhang Quan of Jiaxing University who organized such a research project and contributed both academically and financially to make such a research feasible and successful.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yang, H., Miao, M. (2015). A Rasch-Based Approach for Comparison of English Reading Comprehension Between CET and GEPT. In: Zhang, Q., Yang, H. (eds) Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2014 Conference Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47490-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47490-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47489-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47490-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)