Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Second Language Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chapelle, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research?

Carol A. Chapelle

Iowa State University

Second language (L2) researchers (Singleton and Little, 1991) have sug gested that C-tests, developed as norm-referenced measures for proficiency and placement testing (Klein-Braley, 1985), can be used in L2 vocabulary research. This article illustrates how researchers can bring to bear essentials of measurement theory on L2 research by weighing validity justifications pertaining to use of the C-test method for vocabulary assessment in L2 research. Validity is defined using the predominant framework from current measurement theory (Messick, 1989) and its relevance for L2 research is explained. The cornerstone of the definition is construct validity, which requires a definition of the construct to be measured - interlanguage vocabulary (i.e., vocabulary ability). A theoretical definition of vocabulary ability is presented and used to consider justifications for and against interpreting C-test performance as indicative of vocabulary ability. On the basis of evidence concerning construct validity and utility as well as the consequences of interpretations, the potentials and limitations of the C-test method for L2 vocabulary research are identified.

Second Language Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, 157-187 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/026765839401000203
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RELC JournalHome page
L. Jun Zhang and S. Bin Anual
The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The Case of Secondary School Students Learning English in Singapore
RELC Journal, April 1, 2008; 39(1): 51 - 76.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
T. Eckes and R. Grotjahn
A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests
Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 290 - 325.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
C. A. Chapelle, J. Jamieson, and V. Hegelheimer
Validation of a web-based ESL test
Language Testing, October 1, 2003; 20(4): 409 - 439.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
T. McNamara
Book Review: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests
Language Testing, October 1, 2003; 20(4): 466 - 473.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
J. Read and C. A. Chapelle
A framework for second language vocabulary assessment
Language Testing, January 1, 2001; 18(1): 1 - 32.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
F. Davidson
Book Review: Standards for educational and psychological testing
Language Testing, October 1, 2000; 17(4): 457 - 462.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. F. Bachman
Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count counts
Language Testing, January 1, 2000; 17(1): 1 - 42.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 RELC JournalHome page
A. Jafarpur
What's Magical About the Rule-of Two for Constructing C-Tests?
RELC Journal, December 1, 1999; 30(2): 86 - 100.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
N. Schmitt
The relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word-class knowledge
Language Testing, April 1, 1999; 16(2): 189 - 216.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
B. Laufer and P. Nation
A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability
Language Testing, January 1, 1999; 16(1): 33 - 51.
[Abstract] [PDF]