As the power of tests lies in their uses, language tests that are used to assess immigration eligibility exercise enormous power. Critical Language Testing calls for exposing the power of tests by examining the intentions of introducing tests and their effects on individuals and society, especially from the perspective of testtakers. This case study investigates the rationale for and impact of a particular language-in-migration policy in Australia, drawing on the experiences and perceptions of two skilled migration applicants. One of them was successful and the other unsuccessful, essentially on the ground of their language test results. Insights from the study challenge prevalent discourses about language tests and social integration, employability, economic efficiency, and national security. The article makes some policy recommendations for making the use of language tests more beneficial for immigrants and immigrant-receiving societies in a globalised world that has witnessed unprecedented flows of immigrants.

No abstract

No abstract

As validity pertains to test use rather than the test itself, using a test for unintended purposes requires a new validation program using additional evidence from relevant sources. This small-scale study contributes to the validation of the use of originally academic language tests-the International English Language Testing System and the Test of English as a Foreign Language-for assessing skilled immigration eligibility. Data were collected from 39 immigration-seeking test-takers, who are arguably under-represented in validation research. Analysis was informed by contemporary validity theory, which treats validity as a unitary concept incorporating score reliability, score interpretation, score-based decisions and their consequences. Results showed that the test-takers’ perceptions varied widely. The evidence supporting this use included generally positive perceptions of the scores’ reliability, washback effect, and fairness of score-based decisions. The refuting evidence concerned factors perceived to interfere with test-takers’ performance and the complex consequences for the test-takers in aspects other than washback. However, overwhelmingly, as test-takers found the score-based decisions as fair, the validity judgement appeared tilted towards the positive side from the perspectives of these key stakeholders. Although the ultimate validity judgement requires the examination of evidence from other significant stakeholders as well, the present study has contributed valuable and unique evidence and bears important implications for research, practice, and policy particularly in high-stakes contexts such as immigration.

No abstract