The English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21)

References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational andPsychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME & JCSEPT) (2014).Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 1–29. doi:10.2167/beb392.0
   Google Scholar
• Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• California Department of Education. (2016). California English language development test annual technical report 2015–16 edition. California. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/celdttechreport1516v4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Center for Applied Linguistics. (2017). Annual technical report for ACCESS for ELLs®2.0 online English language proficiency test, Series 400, 2015–2016 administration (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 12A).
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254–272. doi:10.1017/S0267190599190135
   Google Scholar
• Davis, D. S., Huang, B., & Yi, T. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed‐methods examination of predictors and processes of multiple‐text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 227–252. doi:10.1002/rrq.2017.52.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century. (2014). Theory of action. Retrieved from http://www.elpa21.org/sites/default/files/ELPA21_Theory%20of%20Action.pdf
   Google Scholar
• English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century. (2015). The ELPA21 field test implementation report. Retrieved from http://www.elpa21.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Test%20Implementation%20Report-September%202015%20(1).pdf
   Google Scholar
• English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century. (2018). The may insider newsletter. Retrieved from https://mailchi.mp/elpa21/february-at-elpa21-challenges-and-opportunities-2722797?e=[UNIQID]
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, B. A. (2004). Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, B. H. (2013). The effects of accent familiarity and language teaching experience on raters’ judgments of non-native speech. System, 41(3), 770–785. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, B. H. (forthcoming). The relationship between oral language and reading in English-only, proficient bilingual, and emergent bilingual adolescents. In S. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of research on engaging immigrant families and promoting academic success for English language learners. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, B. H., Alegre, A., & Eisenberg, A. (2016). A cross-linguistic investigation of the effect of raters’ accent familiarity on speaking assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41. doi:10.1080/15434303.2015.1134540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, J. (2005). Trends in computer-based second language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 228–242. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000127
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 241–256. doi:10.1177/026553229601300302
   Google Scholar
• Oregon State Department of Education. (2017). ELPA21 test specifications and blueprints. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/assessment/Pages/Test-Specifications-and-Blueprints.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Popham, W. J. (2013). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 18–39. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003
   Google Scholar
• Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Texas Education Agency. (2015). Texas English language proficiency assessment system standards review of technical report. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769812422
   Google Scholar
• Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C. (2013). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30(2), 231–252. doi:10.1177/0265532212456968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar