Setting standards for a diagnostic test of aviation English for student pilots

IF 2.2 1区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Testing Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1177/02655322231224051
Maria Treadaway, John Read
{"title":"Setting standards for a diagnostic test of aviation English for student pilots","authors":"Maria Treadaway, John Read","doi":"10.1177/02655322231224051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Standard-setting is an essential component of test development, supporting the meaningfulness and appropriate interpretation of test scores. However, in the high-stakes testing environment of aviation, standard-setting studies are underexplored. To address this gap, we document two stages in the standard-setting procedures for the Overseas Flight Training Preparation Test (OFTPT), a diagnostic English test for ab initio pilots, aligned to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)’s Language Proficiency Rating Scale (LPRS). Performance-level descriptors (PLDs) were empirically generated in Stage 1 in collaboration with six subject matter experts (SMEs). These PLDs made explicit the correspondence between linguistic performance levels within the target language use domain and the ICAO scale. Findings suggest that the ICAO scale is not fine-grained enough to distinguish levels of linguistic readiness among ab initio pilots, nor does it adequately reflect the knowledge, skills, and abilities valued by SMEs within this domain. In Stage 2, 12 SMEs were recruited to set standards and were divided into two groups to investigate the replicability of Ebel method standard-setting procedures. Cut scores were determined for the OFTPT reading and listening tests, which were inferentially linked to the LPRS. There were no significant differences in the cut scores arrived at by both groups and reliability was excellent, suggesting that test users can have confidence in the standards set.","PeriodicalId":17928,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231224051","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Standard-setting is an essential component of test development, supporting the meaningfulness and appropriate interpretation of test scores. However, in the high-stakes testing environment of aviation, standard-setting studies are underexplored. To address this gap, we document two stages in the standard-setting procedures for the Overseas Flight Training Preparation Test (OFTPT), a diagnostic English test for ab initio pilots, aligned to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)’s Language Proficiency Rating Scale (LPRS). Performance-level descriptors (PLDs) were empirically generated in Stage 1 in collaboration with six subject matter experts (SMEs). These PLDs made explicit the correspondence between linguistic performance levels within the target language use domain and the ICAO scale. Findings suggest that the ICAO scale is not fine-grained enough to distinguish levels of linguistic readiness among ab initio pilots, nor does it adequately reflect the knowledge, skills, and abilities valued by SMEs within this domain. In Stage 2, 12 SMEs were recruited to set standards and were divided into two groups to investigate the replicability of Ebel method standard-setting procedures. Cut scores were determined for the OFTPT reading and listening tests, which were inferentially linked to the LPRS. There were no significant differences in the cut scores arrived at by both groups and reliability was excellent, suggesting that test users can have confidence in the standards set.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为学生飞行员航空英语诊断测试制定标准
标准设定是测试开发的重要组成部分,有助于测试分数的意义和适当解释。然而,在高风险的航空测试环境中,对标准制定的研究却很少。为了弥补这一不足,我们记录了海外飞行培训准备测试(OFTPT)标准制定程序的两个阶段,OFTPT 是针对初学飞行员的诊断性英语测试,与国际民用航空组织(ICAO)的语言能力等级量表(LPRS)相一致。在第一阶段,与六位主题专家(SMEs)合作,根据经验生成了性能等级描述符(PLDs)。这些 PLD 明确了目标语言使用领域内的语言能力水平与 ICAO 量表之间的对应关系。研究结果表明,ICAO量表不够精细,无法区分初学飞行员的语言准备水平,也不能充分反映中小型企业在这一领域所重视的知识、技能和能力。在第二阶段,招募了 12 家中小型企业来制定标准,并将其分为两组,以调查埃贝尔方法标准制定程序的可复制性。确定了 OFTPT 阅读和听力测试的切分分数,并将其与 LPRS 进行了推断。两组得出的切分分数没有明显差异,可靠性极佳,表明测试用户对所制定的标准有信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Language Testing
Language Testing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Language Testing is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language testing and assessment. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information between people working in the fields of first and second language testing and assessment. This includes researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing, and assessment in child language acquisition and language pathology. In addition, special attention is focused on issues of testing theory, experimental investigations, and the following up of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Open access in language testing and assessment: The case of two flagship journals Authenticity of academic lecture passages in high-stakes tests: A temporal fluency perspective A Context-Aligned Two Thousand Test: Toward estimating high-frequency French vocabulary knowledge for beginner-to-low intermediate proficiency adolescent learners in England A scoping review of research on second language test preparation The effect of viewing visual cues in a listening comprehension test on second language learners’ test-taking process and performance: An eye-tracking study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1