Examining the Notion of Listening Subskill Divisibility and its Implications for Second Language Listening

References

• Aitken, K. G. (1978). Measuring listening comprehension in English as a second language. TEAL Occasional Papers, Volume 2. Vancouver, Canada: British Columbia Association of Teachers of English as an Additional Language.
   Google Scholar
• Aryadoust, V. (2013). Building a validity argument for a listening test of academic proficiency. Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (CSP).
   Google Scholar
• Aryadoust, V., & Goh, C. (2013). Exploring the relative merits of cognitive diagnostic models and confirmatory factor analysis for assessing listening comprehension. In E. D. Galaczi & C. J. Weir (Eds.), Studies in language testing volume of proceedings from the ALTE Krakow conference, 2011 (pp. 405–426). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations and Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aryadoust, V., Goh, C., & Lee, O. K. (2011). An investigation of differential item functioning in the MELAB listening test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(4), 361–385. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.628632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aryadoust, V., Goh, C., & Lee, O. K. (2012). Developing an academic listening self-assessment questionnaire: A study of modeling academic listening. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54(3), 227–256.
   Google Scholar
• Bae, J., & Bachman, L. F. (1998). A latent variable approach to listening and reading: Testing factorial invariance across two groups of children in the Korean/English two-way immersion program. Language Testing, 15, 380–414. doi:10.1191/026553298676874967
   Google Scholar
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87. doi:10.1177/109442819800100104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 78–102. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (1991). Connectionism and the mind: An introduction to parallel processing in networks. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly, 59, 277–295. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583495
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D. (2013). Issues in the measurement of listening. Communication Research Reports, 30, 76–84. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.733981
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2011). A comparison of four measurement models for the Watson-Barker Listening Test (WBLT)-Form C. Communication Research Reports, 28, 32–42. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.540547
   Google Scholar
• Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London, England: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Buck, G. (1992). Listening comprehension: Construct validity and trait characteristics. Language Testing, 42, 313–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01339.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buck, G., & Tatsuoka, L. (1998). Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing examining attributes of a free response listening test. Language Testing, 15, 119–157. doi:10.1177/026553229801500201
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1972). Defining language comprehension. In R. O. Freedle & J. B. Carroll (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compton, D., Love, T. P., & Sell, J. (2012). Developing and assessing intercoder reliability in studies of group interaction. Sociological Methodology, 42, 348–364. doi:10.1177/0081175012444860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunkel, P., Henning, G., & Chaudron, C. (1993). The assessment of a listening comprehension construct: A tentative model for test specification and development. Modern Language Journal, 77, 180–191. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01962.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eom, M. (2008). Underlying factors of MELAB listening construct. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 6, 77–94. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan English Language Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Espeseth, M. (2004). Academic listening encounters: Human behavior listening, note taking, and discussion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7–29). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flowerdew, J., & Miller, J. (2006) Second language listening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1991). The prediction of SAT reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages (TOEFL Research Report RR 91-29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1996). The prediction of TOEFL listening comprehension item difficulty for mini-talk passages: implications for construct validity (TOEFL Research Report RR 96). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Goh, C. C. M. (2010). Listening as process: Learning activities for self-appraisal and self-regulation. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 179–206). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goh, C. C. M., & Hu, G. (2014). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness, 23, 255–274. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.769558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haberman, S. J., & von Davier, M. (2007). Some notes on models for cognitively based skills diagnosis. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 1031–1038). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Singer Foust, M. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256. doi:10.1177/109442819923002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, C., & Jensen, C. (1994). Evaluating lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 241–268). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hildyard, A., & Olson, D. (1978). Memory and inference in the comprehension of oral and written discourse. Discourse Processes, 1, 91–107. doi:10.1080/01638537809544431
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(5), 413–425. doi:10.1076/call.16.5.413.29488
   Google Scholar
• Huynh, H., & Meyer, P. L. (2003). Maximum information approach to scale description for affective measures based on the Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 1010–1110.
   Google Scholar
• Imhof, M., & Janusik, L. A. (2006). Development and validation of the Imhof-Janusik listening concepts inventory to measure listening conceptualization differences between cultures. Journal of International Communication Research, 35, 79–98. doi:10.1080/17475750600909246
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. (2003). MELAB technical manual. Ann Arbor, MI: English Language Institute, the University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. H., & Jang, E. E. (2009). Differential functioning of reading sub-skills on the OSSLT for L1 and ELL students: A multidimensionality model-based DBF/DIF approach. Language Learning, 59, 825–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kunnan, A. J. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15, 295–332. doi:10.1177/026553229801500302
   Google Scholar
• Kunnan, A. J., & Jang, E. E. (2009). Diagnostic feedback in language assessment. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 610–625). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-W., & Sawaki, Y. (2009). Cognitive diagnostic approaches to language assessment: An overview. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 172–189. doi:10.1080/15434300902985108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, Y. (2007). Investigating the construct validity of the grammar and vocabulary section and the listening section of the ECCE: Lexico-grammatical ability as a predictor of L2 listening ability. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 5, 37–78. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan English Language Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Liao, Y. (2009). Construct validation study of the GEPT reading and listening sections: Re-examining the models of L2 reading and listening abilities and their relations to lexico-grammatical knowledge ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modelling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, T. (2010). Listening: Sources, skills and strategies. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 74–87). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195384253.013.0005
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 107–117. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulaik, S. A., & Quartetti, D. A. (1997). First order or higher order general factor? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 193–211. doi:10.1080/10705519709540071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munby, J. (1978) Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nissan, S., DeVincenzi, F., & Tang, L. (1996). An analysis of factors affecting the difficulty of dialogue items in TOEFL listening comprehension. (TOEFL Research Report RR 95-37). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Oakeshott-Taylor, J. (1977). Information redundancy, and listening comprehension. In R. Dirven (Ed.), Hörverständnis im Fremdsprachenunterricht [Listening comprehension in foreign language teaching]. Kronberg/Ts: Scriptor.
   Google Scholar
• Oller, J. W., Jr. (1983). Evidence for a general proficiency factor: An expectancy grammar. In J. W. Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 3–10). Rowley, MA: Newbery House Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Oller, J. W., Jr., & Hinofitis, F. B. (1980). Two manually exclusive hypotheses about second language ability: Indivisible or partly divisible competence. In J. W. Oller, Jr., & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 13–23). Rowley, MA: Newbery House Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Pandya, D. N. (1995). Anatomy of the auditory cortex. Review Neurology (Paris), 151, 486–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phakiti, A. (2008). Strategic competence as a fourth-order factor: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 20–42. doi:10.1080/15434300701533596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phakiti, A. (2007). Strategic competence and EFL reading test performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25, 237–272. doi:10.1177/0265532207086783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purpura, J. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability test takers: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15, 333–379. doi:10.1177/026553229801500303
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. G. Gifford & M. C. O’Conner (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37–75). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 219–239. doi:10.2307/3586651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rixon, S. (1981). The design of materials to foster particular linguistic skills: The teaching of listening comprehension. In The teaching of listening comprehension. London, England: The British Council.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, S. (1997). An introspective analysis of listener inferencing on a second language listening test. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 216–237). London, England: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Rouiller, E. M. (1997). Functional organization of the auditory pathways. In G. Ehret & R. Romand (Eds.), The central auditory system (pp. 3–96). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanabria, K. (2004). Academic listening encounters: Life in society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sawaki, Y., Kim, H.-J., & Gentile, C. (2009). Q-Matrix construction: Defining the link between constructs and test items in large-scale reading and listening comprehension assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 190–209. doi:10.1080/15434300902801917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T., & Lee, Y.-W. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses: Assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 73–95. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.633305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, S. (2008). Examining the construct validity of a web-based academic listening test: An investigation of the effects of response formats. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 6, 95–129. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan English Language Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (1991). Construct validation of listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 8, 23–40. doi:10.1177/026553229100800103
   Google Scholar
• Suga, N., & Ma, X. (2003). Multiparametric corticofugal modulation and plasticity in the auditory system. Nature Review, Neuroscience, 4, 783–794. doi:10.1038/nrn1222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. B. M., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432–451. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004338
   Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodatari, M. H. (2006). The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language Learning, 56, 431–462. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, E. (2004). A construct validation study of the extended listening sections of the ECPE and MELAB. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 2, 1–23. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan English Language Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. (1990). Communicative language testing. London, England: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1996). Listening (5th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 558–575. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01398.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). Development and validation of the Test Takers’ Metacognitive Awareness Reading Questionnaire. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 37–51. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0083-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar