The B2 Level and the Dream of a Common Standard

References

• ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. (1991). Bands and scores. In J. C. Alderson, & B. North (Eds.). Language testing in the 1990s (pp. 71–86). London, England: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663. doi:10.1111/modl.2007.91.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bärenfänger, O., & Tschirner, E. (2012). Assessing evidence of validity of assigning CEFR ratings to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Oral Proficiency Interview by computer (OPIc) (Technical Report 2012-US-PUB-1). Leipzig, Germany: Institute for Test Research and Test Development.
   Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K. (2011). Effects of marking method and rater experience on ESL essay scores and rater performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(3), 279–293. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.526585
   Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K. (2014). Multifaceted rasch analysis for test evaluation. In A. Kunnan (Ed.). The companion to language assessment (pp. 1301–1322). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Baztán, A. (2008). La evaluación oral: Una equivalencia entre las guidelines de ACTFL y algunas escalas del MCER. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg, France: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, A. (1984). Validating three tests of English language proficiency. Language Testing, 1(1), 50–69. doi:10.1177/026553228400100105
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, J. H. A. L., Becker, K., Bolt, D., & Goodman, J. (2014). Aligning PTE Academic Test Scores to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Pearson. Retrieved from https://pearsonpte.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Aligning_PTEA_Scores_CEF.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deygers, B., & Gorp, K. (2015). Determining the scoring validity of a co-constructed CEFR-based rating scale. Language Testing, 32(4), 521–541. doi:10.1177/0265532215575626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deygers, B., Zeidler, B., Vilcu, D., & Hamnes Carlsen, C. (2017). One Framework to Unite Them All? Use of the CEFR in European University Entrance Policies. Language Assessment Quarterly. doi:10.1080/15434303.2016.1261350
   Google Scholar
• ETS. (2010). Linking TOEFL iBT TM scores to IELTS scores—A research report. Retrieved July 8 2015 from https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/linking_toefl_ibt_scores_to_ielts_scores.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477–485. doi:10.1093/elt/ccs037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figueras, N., North, B., Takala, S., Van Avermaet, P., & Verhelst, N. (2009). Relating language examinations to the common european framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). A manual. Stasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and Harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253–266. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0104_4
   Google Scholar
• Fulcher, G. (2012). Scoring performance tests. In G. Fulcher, & F. Davidson (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 378–392). London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fulcher, G., Davidson, F., & Kemp, J. (2011). Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees. Language Testing, 28(1), 5–29. doi:10.1177/0265532209359514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E., Ffrench, A., Hubbard, C., & Green, A. (2011). Developing assessment scales for large-scale speaking tests: A multiple-method approach. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(3), 217–237.
   Google Scholar
• Gomez, P., Noah, A., Schedl, M., Wright, C., & Yolkut, A. (2007). Proficiency descriptors based on a scale-anchoring study of the new TOEFL iBT reading test. Language Testing, 24(3), 417–444. doi:10.1177/0265532207077209
   Google Scholar
• Harsch, C., & Martin, G. (2012). Adapting CEF-descriptors for rating purposes: Validation by a combined rater training and scale revision approach. Assessing Writing, 17(4), 228–250. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2012.06.003
   Google Scholar
• Harsch, C., & Rupp, A. (2011). Designing and scaling level-specific writing tasks in alignment with the CEFR: A test-centered approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(1), 1–33. doi:10.1080/15434303.2010.535575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell, D. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. doi:10.1111/jedm.2013.50.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalifa, H., & Ffrench, A. (2009). Aligning Cambridge ESOL examinations to the CEFR: Issues and practice. Cambridge Research Notes, 37, 10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking: Methods and Practices. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre, J. (2012). A user’s guide to FACETS Rasch-model computer programs. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from www.winsteps.com/a/facets-manual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, M. (2015). Facets (Version 3.71.4). Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.
   Google Scholar
• Little, D. (2007). The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645–655. doi:10.1111/modl.2007.91.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing, 19(3), 246–276. doi:10.1191/0265532202lt230oa
   Google Scholar
• Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to Information Retrieval. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London, England: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Eds). Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, P. (2007). Reconstructing validity. Educational Researcher, 36(8), 470–476. doi:10.3102/0013189X07311608
   Google Scholar
• Norris, J. M. (2015). Statistical Significance Testing in Second Language Research: Basic Problems and Suggestions for Reform. Language Learning, 65(S1), 97–126.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2014). Standardization agreement STANAG 6001 language proficiency levels. Brussels, Belgium: Bureau for International Language Coordination.
   Google Scholar
• North, B. (2007). The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 656–659. doi:10.1111/modl.2007.91.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North, B. (2014a). English profile studies. The CEFR in practice (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• North, B. (2014b). Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching, 47(02), 228–249. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, B., & Weir, C. (2011). Testing and validation. In B. O’Sullivan (Ed.). Language testing: Theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Oxford, England: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Papageorgiou, S. (2010). Investigating the decision-making process of standard setting participants. Language Testing, 27(2), 261–282. doi:10.1177/0265532209349472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papageorgiou, S., Xi, X., Morgan, R., & So, Y. (2015). Developing and validating band levels and descriptors for reporting overall examinee performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(2), 153–177. doi:10.1080/15434303.2015.1008480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purpura, J. E., Brown, J. D., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Improving the validity of quantitative measures in applied language research. Language Learning, 65(1), 36–73. doi:10.1111/lang.12112
   Google Scholar
• Riazi, M. (2013). Concurrent and predictive validity of Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE Academic). Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 2(2), 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Roever, C., & McNamara, T. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 242–258. doi:10.1111/ijal.2006.16.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3),257–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swender, E. (2010). A tale of two tests. STANAG and CEFR. Comparing the Results of side-by-side testing of reading proficiency, Paper presented at BILC, Istanbul.
   Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum, R. J., & Wylie, C. E. (2008). Linking English-language test scores onto the common European framework of reference: An application of standard-setting methodology. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. (2004). Issues of test comparability. Cambridge Research Notes, 15, 2–5.
   Google Scholar
• Tschirner, E., Bärenfänger, O., & Wisniewski, K. (2015). Assessing evidence of validity of the ACTFL CEFR listening and reading proficiency tests (LPT and RPT) using a standard-setting approach (Technical Report 2015-EU-PUB-2). Leipzig, Germany: Institute for Test Research and Test Development.
   Google Scholar
• van Ek, J. A. (1975). Systems development in adult language learning: The threshold level in a European-Unit/Credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Vanbelle, S., & Albert, A. (2009). A note on the linearly weighted kappa coefficient for ordinal scales. Statistical Methodology, 6(2), 157–163. doi:10.1016/j.stamet.2008.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. (2005a). Language testing and validation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. (2005b). Limitations of the common european framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281–300. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt309oa
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y., & De Jong, J. (2011). Research note: Establishing construct and concurrent validity of pearson test of English academic. Pearson Education Ltd. Retrieved March 2 2015 from http://pearsonpte.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/RN_EstablishingConstructAndConcurrentValidityOfPTEAcademic_2011.pdf
   Google Scholar