Overestimation of Lpi Ratings for Native‐korean Speakers in the Toeic Testing Context: Search for Explanation

Abstract

Regression‐based guidelines have been developed for predicting ratings of speaking proficiency in English as a foreign language (EFL), as assessed using the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) procedure, from scores on the TOEIC® (Test of English for International Communication) Test. These guidelines, which reflect the regression of LPI rating on TOEIC scores in a combined sample composed of native speakers of Japanese, French, Spanish, and Arabic, respectively, were found to overestimate LPI rating when applied to data for native speakers of Korean. It was hypothesized that this outcome would be expected if development of EFL speaking proficiency (as assessed by the LPI procedure) tends to lag relatively more behind development of the proficiencies that are assessed by the TOEIC Test, for native‐Korean‐speaking EFL learners than for demographically comparable EFL learners in other national/linguistic settings (at least those represented in the study sample). An indirect assessment of this hypothesis was undertaken in a series of exploratory analyses involving section‐ and total‐score means for native‐language groups on the familiar, three‐part version of the Test of English as a Foreign Language™ (TOEFL®). Findings were interpreted as being generally, albeit indirectly, supportive of the developmental lag hypothesis, as well as of working assumptions underlying introduction and analysis of TOEFL native‐language reference group means as group analytic variables. Needed lines of inquiry are suggested.

Development of English Skills Need Not Suffer as a Result of Immersion: Grades 1 and 2 Writing Assessment in a Korean/English Two‐Way Immersion Program

“…The remarkable success by Korean‐American students might be of special interest in view of the salient linguistic distance between English and Korean language systems. For instance, Wilson (2001) noted that English as a foreign language (EFL) speaking proficiency tends to lag behind the proficiencies that are assessed by the TOEIC test relatively more in native‐Korean‐speaking EFL learners than in demographically comparable EFL learners in other national/linguistic settings. Specifically, in Wilson's study, the regression of the interview ratings on TOEIC scores in a combined sample composed of native speakers of Japanese, French, Spanish, and Arabic, respectively, was found to overestimate the interview rating when applied to data for native speakers of Korean.…”

Factor structure of the revised TOEIC® test: A multiple-sample analysis

“…Boldt & Ross, 1998, n.d.), and relationships with other measurement scales (e.g. Powers et al, 2008;Tannenbaum & Wylie, 2005;Wilson, 1999Wilson, , 2001. For example, Woodford (1982), in what was perhaps the first validation study of the TOEIC test, reported high reliability indices of .916, .930, and .956 for the listening, reading, and whole sections.…”

Psychological and Linguistic Determinants of Educational Adjustment Among Thai Students Enrolled in First-Year Thai University English Language Courses

“…Princeton University Educational Testing Service reported that the test-retest reliability of TOEIC was 0.96, based on its administration to 2,710 test-takers in Japan in 1979 (Chapman, 2006). TOEIC scores correlated r = 0.83 with other measures of ESL (English as a second language) proficiency (Wilson, 2001).…”