Writing tasks assigned in 162 undergraduate and graduate courses in several disciplines at eight universities were collected. Using a sample of the assignments, key dimensions of difference were identified, and a classification scheme based on those dimensions was developed. Application of the classification scheme provided data on the prevalence of various types of assignments and, for essay tasks, showed the degree to which the assignments were characterized by each of several features. Differences in the kinds of writing tasks assigned in different groups of disciplines were examined.

In a recent study, confirmatory factor analyses indicated that, for each of several language groups, TOEFL performance can be characterized by two factors, associated with (a) the Listening Comprehension section and (b) the other sections of the test (Hale, Stansfield, Rock, Hicks, Butler, & Oiler, 1988). This conclusion was inconsistent with that drawn in the most comprehensive previous factor‐analytic study of the TOEFL, which suggested a three‐factor solution for each of several languages (Swinton & Powers, 1980). The present study investigated the inconsistency in conclusions drawn from these two studies and provided further information about the factor structure of the TOEFL. It was hypothesized that the inconsistency between studies was related to the populations under investigation, as the earlier study used TOEFL examinees in both domestic and overseas test centers, whereas the more recent study used domestic examinees only. The present data did not support this hypothesis, however. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for each of several language groups, using data from the test form used in the more recent study (a 1984 TOEFL), and these analyses yielded essentially similar results for both domestic and overseas populations, as well as for the combined population. In all cases, the data supported a two‐factor interpretation, with the two factors related to the Listening Comprehension section and to the nonlistening sections. Other hypotheses were that the inconsistency between studies was due to differences in factor‐analytic methodologies used or to changes in the test over time. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using the data from the earlier study (taken from a 1976 TOEFL) as well as data from the more recent study. These analyses supported a two‐factor interpretation in both cases, for each of several language groups, with the two factors associated with Listening Comprehension and with the other sections of the test. Thus, the use of different factor‐analytic methodologies in the two previous studies undoubtedly contributed to the inconsistency, although further work would be needed to determine exactly what aspects of the methodology played a role. The data also provided tentative evidence that the basic factor structure of the test may not have changed substantially between 1976 and 1984. The role of examinee proficiency in determining the TOEFL's factor structure was also examined. For each of several language groups, low‐ and high‐proficiency groups were defined on the basis of approximately one third of the items in the TOEFL, drawn from all sections of the test, and factor analyses were then performed on an abbreviated TOEFL, which consisted of the remaining items. For both proficiency levels within each language group a two‐factor structure appeared to underlie performance, with the factors once again linked to Listening Comprehension and to the other, nonlistening sections of the test.

No abstract

This study examined the relation of TOEFL® performance to a widely used variant of the cloze procedure–the multiple‐choice (MC) cloze method. A main objective was to determine if categories of MC cloze items could be identified that related differentially to the various parts of the TOEFL. MC cloze items were prepared and classified according to whether the involvement of reading comprehension, as defined by sensitivity to long‐range textual constraints, was primary or secondary. For two categories, reading comprehension was primary and knowledge of grammar or vocabulary was secondary, and for two other categories knowledge of grammar or vocabulary was primary and reading comprehension secondary. Examinees taking an operational TOEFL at domestic test centers were given the three basic sections of the test along with a fourth section containing the MC cloze items. Performance was examined for each of nine major language groups. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses for the basic TOEFL were performed first, to provide a basis for relating the MC cloze items to the TOEFL structure. These factor analyses suggested that, from a practical standpoint, TOEFL performance can be adequately described by just two factors, which relate to (a) Listening Comprehension, and (b) all other parts of the test–Structure, Written Expression, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension. Examination of the MC cloze test showed that the total MC cloze score was relatively reliable and that it was possible to estimate item response theory parameters for the MC cloze items with reasonable accuracy. Thus, the development of the MC cloze items was successful in these respects. However, the correlations among scores for the four MC cloze item categories were approximately as high as their reliabilities, thus providing no strong empirical evidence that the item types within the MC cloze test reflected distinct skills. Correlational analyses related the four MC cloze categories to the five parts of the TOEFL. These analyses revealed a slight tendency for MC cloze items that involved a combination of grammar and reading to relate more highly to the Structure and Written Expression parts of the TOEFL than the other parts, and for MC cloze items that involved a combination of vocabulary and reading to relate more highly to the Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension parts of the TOEFL than the other parts. Although this pattern was relatively consistent across language groups, however, the differences among correlations were not substantial enough to be of practical importance. Multiple regression analyses were performed, using total MC cloze score as the dependent variable and the five TOEFL parts as independent variables. The resulting multiple Rs were mostly in the lower to upper .90s, suggesting that total MC cloze performance can be predicted from TOEFL performance with a relatively high degree of accuracy. In general, the study provided no evidence that distinct skills are measured by the nonlistening parts of the TOEFL or by the four...

Checklists have been shown to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality in the healthcare setting.[1] Their application in safety-critical industries outside of medicine continues to offer a strong argument for their application to medicine.[2] The daily in-patient medical ward round is a complex process and includes multiple potential risks to patient safety. This project aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a ward round review checklist on one general medical ward in a district general hospital in the UK.A baseline audit was performed, examining case-notes for a set of pre-defined outcome measures relevant to patient safety. Compliance with documentation of each outcome measure was assessed prior to the introduction of a ward round checklist. This was followed by a quality improvement project through the use of PDSA cycles, with the aim of introducing and developing a ward round checklist over a nine month period. Following the introduction of a checklist, overall compliance with documentation of each outcome measure improved from 45% to 89%.In conclusion, a quality improvement project involving the introduction of a ward round checklist for daily use has resulted in improved documentation of outcome measures that are relevant to patient safety. Teamwork and leadership skills from clinicians committed to improving patient safety is essential to sustaining improvements in traditional ward round practice.

It was hypothesized that a student's academic discipline would interact with the text content in determining performance on the reading passages of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). To test this hypothesis, the present study examined performance on the reading passages in TOEFL forms used in four operational test administrations. The results supported the hypothesis, as students in the two key major-field groups, the humanities/social sciences and the biological/physical sciences, performed better on passages related to their own groups than on other passages. The effect was significant for three of the four test forms. The effect was relatively small in each case, however, as expressed in terms of points on the TOEFL scale, perhaps because TOEFL reading passages are drawn from general readings rather than specialized text books. Thus, it is important to distinguish between the statistical significance and the practical significance of the effect.

This study examined the effects of taking notes in the portion of the TOEFL listening comprehension section that contains short monologues, or 'mini talks'. These effects were assessed in experimental testing sessions with students in intensive English language programmes and with undergraduate and graduate international students. A multiple-choice questionnaire sur veyed the students' reactions to the opportunity to take notes and their previous note-taking experiences. Allowing students to take notes had little effect on their performance, and urging students to take notes significantly impaired their performance. These effects were observed even for students who reported being in the habit of taking many notes or reported having had classroom instruction in note taking. Apparently, then, little benefit is gained by taking notes in the context of the present TOEFL minitalks, perhaps because they are designed to assess listening comprehension with minimal demand placed on memory. Responses to the questionnaire aid in understanding the results and provide useful general information about the students' note-taking experiences and habits.

This set of 82 summaries is based on papers written between 1963 and 1982 concerning TOEFL. The papers summarized consist primarily of reports of research involving TOEFL. Also included are a few descriptive papers, which are summarized here to provide a perspective on the history and development of the test. The methods and criteria by which papers were identified for inclusion, as well as a scheme for classification of the papers, are presented in the Introduction.