Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Linguistics

개정 TEPS 구인타당도 검증

임의진1,, 전희성1, 윤정민1, 민선홍1
Euijin Lim1,, Heesung Jun1, Jungmin Yun1, Sunhong Min1
Corresponding Author: ejlim.mail@gmail.com

ⓒ Copyright 2018 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Nov 01, 2019

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to obtain evidence of construct validity for the revised TEPS. Multiple data sets were obtained from the operational TEPS administrations before and after the revision and four pilot tests during the revision process and used for correlation analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Inter-section correlation coefficients and standardized factor loadings were compared across forms, and the model-data fit indices were examined for each form. Based on the results, it was found that the original TEPS and the revised TEPS measured very similar or virtually the same construct. Even though the revision introduced major changes to the TEPS, the underlying factor structure was the same for all the forms examined in this study.

Keywords: TEPS; test revision; construct validity; confirmatory factor analysis

References

1.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 449-465 .

2.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246 .

3.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software .

4.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606 .

5.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A .

6.

Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

7.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt .

8.

Hong, S. (2000). The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19, 161-177 .

9.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453 .

10.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55 .

11.

In'nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2012). Factor structure of the revised TOEIC test: A multiple-sample analysis. Language Testing, 29, 131-152 .

12.

Kim, S. Y. (2016). Fundamentals and extensions of structural equation modeling. Seoul: Hakjisa .

13.

Kunnan, A. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15, 295-332 .

14.

Oller. J. W. Jr. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman .

15.

Sang, F., Schmitz, B., Vollmer, H. J., Baumert, J., & Roeder, P. M. (1986). Models of second language competence: A structural equation approach. Language Testing, 3, 54-79 .

16.

Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L. J., & Oranje, A. H. (2009). Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-based test. Language Testing, 26, 5-30 .

17.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180 .

18.

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA .

19.

Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., & Lee, Y.-W. (2005). Factor structure of the LanguEdge test across language groups (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-32). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service .

20.

TEPS Center (2016). TEPS Technical Report: 2016 administration (internal document). Seoul: TEPS Center .

21.

TEPS Center (2019). TEPS Technical Report: 2018 administration (internal document). Seoul: TEPS Center .

22.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10 .

23.

Wilson, K. M. (2000). An exporatory dimensionality assessment of the TOEIC test (TOEIC Research Report No. RR-00-14). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service .

24.

Yoo, H., & Manna, V. F. (2017). Measuring English language workplace proficiency across subgroups: Using CFA models to validate test score interpretation. Language Testing, 34, 101-126 .