The differential predictive validity of a test of academic literacy for students from different English language school backgrounds

References

• Bachman LF, Palmer AS. 1996. Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blanton LL. 1994. Discourse, artefacts and the Ozarks: Understanding academic literacy. Journal of Second Language Writing 3 (1): 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, Van Heerden J. 2004. The concept of validity. Psychological Review 111: 1061–1071. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cliff A. 2014. Entry-level students’ reading abilities and what these abilities might mean for academic readiness. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa 45 (3): 313–324. doi: 10.1080/10228195.2014.958519
   Google Scholar
• Cliff AF. 2015. The National Benchmark Test in Academic Literacy: How might it be used to support teaching in higher education? Language Matters 46 (1): 3–21. doi: 10.1080/10228195.2015.1027505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cliff AF, Hanslo M. 2009. The design and use of ‘alternate’ assessments of academic literacy as selection mechanisms in higher education. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27(3): 265–276. doi: 10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.3.5.939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cliff AF, Yeld N. 2006. Test domains and constructs: Academic literacy. In: Griesel H (ed.), Access and entry level benchmarks: The national benchmark tests project. Pretoria: Higher Education South Africa. pp. 19–27.
   Google Scholar
• Cliff AF, Yeld N, Hanslo M. 2003. Assessing the academic literacy skills of entry-level students, using the Placement Test in English for Educational Purposes (PTEEP). Bi-annual conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI) 26–30 August, Padua, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2013. A proposal for undergraduate curriculum reform in South Africa: The case a flexible curriculum structure. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Davies A, Elder C. 2005. Validity and validation in language testing. In: Hinkel E (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 795–813.
   Google Scholar
• Dörnyei Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleisch B, Schoer V, Cliff AF. 2015. When signals are lost in aggregation: A comparison of language marks and competencies of first-year university students. South African Journal of Higher Education 29 (5): 156–178.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel J, Wallen N. 2003. How to design and evaluate research in education (5th edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Haynes NS, Lench HC. 2003. Incremental validity of new clinical assessment measures. Psychological Assessment 15 (4): 456–466. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.456
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lissitz RW, Samuelsen K. 2007. A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher 36: 437–448. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07311286
   Google Scholar
• Mackey A, Gass SM. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Messick S. 1980. Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist 35: 1012–1027. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick S. 1989. Validity. In: Linn RL (ed.), Educational measurement (3rd edn). New York: American Council of Education/Collier Macmillan. pp. 13–103.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan GA, Leech L, Gloeckner GW, Barret KC. 2011. IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rambiritch A. 2012a. Transparency, accessibility and accountability as regulative conditions for a postgraduate test of academic literacy. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
   Google Scholar
• Rambiritch A. 2012b. Challenging Messick: Proposing a theoretical framework for understanding fundamental concepts in language testing. Journal for Language Teaching 46 (2): 108–121.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Slik F. 2008. Gender bias and gender differences in tests of academic literacy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27 (3): 277–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Slik F, Weideman A. 2005. The refinement of a test of academic literacy. Per Linguam 21 (1): 23–35.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Slik F, Weideman A. 2009. Revisiting test stability: Further evidence relating to the measurement of difference in performance on a test of academic literacy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27 (3): 253–263. doi: 10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.3.6.940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyk TJ. 2005. Towards providing effective academic literacy intervention. Per Linguam 21 (2): 38–51.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dyk T, Weideman A. 2004. Switching constructs: On the selection of an appropriate blueprint for academic literacy assessment. Journal for Language Teaching 38 (1): 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Van Rensburg C, Weideman A. 2002. Language proficiency: Current strategies, future remedies. Journal for Language Teaching 36 (1&2): 162–164.
   Google Scholar
• Visser AJ, Hanslo M. 2005. Approaches to predictive studies: Possibilities and challenges. South African Journal of Higher Education 19 (6): 1160–1176.
   Google Scholar
• Weideman A. 2003. Assessing and developing academic literacy. Per Linguam 19 (1&2): 55–65.
   Google Scholar
• Weideman A. 2009. Constitutive and regulative conditions for the assessment of academic literacy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27 (3): 235–251. doi: 10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.3.3.937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weideman A. 2012. Validation and validity beyond Messick. Per Linguam 28 (2): 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Weideman A. 2017. Responsible design in applied linguistics: theory and practice. Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Young JW. 2004. Differential validity and prediction: Race and sex differences in college admission testing. In: Zwick R (ed.), Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 289–301.
   Google Scholar
• Zwick R. 2004. Is the SAT a ‘Wealth Test?’ The link between educational achievement and socioeconomic status. In: Zwick R (ed.), Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 203–216.
   Google Scholar