1996
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.1996.10668620
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Validity of Three English Oral Language Proficiency Tests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Pre-IPT technical data included in the technical manual indicated a test-retest reliability of .77. Schrank, Fletcher, and Alvarado (1996) reported concurrent correlations between this test and teachers' estimates of language proficiency and between the Pre-IPT and the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised of .71 and .91, respectively.…”
Section: Preschool Idea Oral Language Proficiency Testmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The Pre-IPT technical data included in the technical manual indicated a test-retest reliability of .77. Schrank, Fletcher, and Alvarado (1996) reported concurrent correlations between this test and teachers' estimates of language proficiency and between the Pre-IPT and the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised of .71 and .91, respectively.…”
Section: Preschool Idea Oral Language Proficiency Testmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Because oral English-language proficiency tests are adopted widely by states to determine the eligibility of program placement and exit for ELLs, these tests should be academically oriented in nature (Schrank, Fletcher, & Alvarado, 1996). Hakuta et al (2000) asserted that the WLPB-R was considered to offer a more holistic picture of ELLs' academic oral-language proficiency, because it was naturally developed with a norm group of native English speakers as a reference for comparison and therefore served as "a best measure available to indicate students' [ELLs'] academic competitiveness with English-speaking peers" (p. 6).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Information on LAS validation is limited. Two studies (Dalton, 1979;Schrank, Fletcher, & Alvarado, 1996) reported high correlations between LAS-O scores and teachers' ratings of student English proficiency (.73 and .76, respectively). The test was widely criticized for its low predictive validity of ELLs' academic achievement (see a discussion in Solórzano, 2008).…”
Section: English Proficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%