Content Relevance and Content Coverage in Tests of Grammatical Ability

Abstract

Three widely used tests of grammatical ability were evaluated for content-oriented test construction using two procedures. First, a decision-making model was developed to assist in judging the content relevance and coverage of each test using information provided by respective test authors. Second, a comprehensive model of the grammatical domain was applied to individual items on the tests so that descriptions and comparisons of their content domains could be made. Both evaluations showed inadequate content relevance and coverage for all three tests. The content domains of these tests were found deficient when judged against an external standard as well as when examined according to their own content specifications. The influence of inadequate content relevance and coverage on assessment and remediation is discussed.

Using Standardized Tests to Inventory Consonant and Vowel Production: A Comparison of 11 Tests of Articulation and Phonology

“…Content validity delimits the trait being assessed and how that trait will be measured (Sabers, 1996). Content validity involves specification of a test's domain (referred to as content relevance) and the degree of representativeness with which a test samples that domain (referred to as content coverage; Lieberman & Michael, 1986). As for all aspects of validity, content relevance and coverage must be determined for each purpose.…”

The Identification of Language Impairment in the Selection of Specifically Language-Impaired Subjects

“…Potential positive effects of test use stem from their quantifiability and relative objectivity-features that might promote consistent implementation and thus increase the comparability of subjects across studies, which would allow for meaningful integration of research find-ings. The potential negative effects of test use have been described at length (e.g., Kelly & Rice, 1986;Leonard, Prutting, Perozzi, & Berkley, 1978;Lieberman & Michael, 1986;McCauley, 1989;Newhoff & Leonard, 1983). The potential negative effect most relevant to this review is that there is very little evidence about the ability of such tests to differentiate normally developing children from language-impaired children-that is, very little evidence regarding concurrent validity (Howell, Skinner, Gray, & Broomfield, 1981;McCauley & Swisher, 1984a;Sommers, Erdige, & Peterson, 1978;Stark et al, 1982).…”

Naturalistic Language Assessment of LEP Students in Classroom Interactions

“…Fifth, formal tests usually lack purpose or communicative intent for the student; purpose and intent are the sole province of the examiner. Finally, the psychometric qualities of many formal oral language proficiency measures are inadequate Lieberman & Michael, 1986;. Given these concerns, accurate assessment of oral language proficiency of LEP students is considered to be a challenge .…”