Four empirically based reasons not to administer time-limited tests.

Abstract

For more than a century, measurement experts have distinguished between time-limited tests and untimed power tests, which are administered without time limits or with time limits so generous all students are assured of completing all items. On untimed power tests, students can differ in their propensity to correctly respond to every item, and items should differ in how many correct responses they elicit. However, differences among students' speed of responding do not confound untimed power tests; therefore, untimed power tests ensure more accurate assessment. In this article, we present four empirically-based reasons to administer untimed power tests rather than time-limited tests in educational settings. (1) Time-limited tests are less valid; students' test-taking pace is not a valid reflection of their knowledge and mastery. (2) Time-limited tests are less reliable; estimates of time-limited tests' reliability are artificially inflated due to artefactual consistency in students' rate of work rather than authentic consistency in students' level of knowledge. (3) Time-limited tests are less inclusive; time-limited tests exclude students with documented disabilities who, because they are legally allowed additional test-taking time, are often literally excluded from test-taking classrooms. (4) Time-limited tests are less equitable; in addition to excluding students with documented disabilities, time-limited tests can also impede students who are learning English, students from under-represented backgrounds, students who are older than average, and students with disabilities who encounter barriers (e.g., stigma and financial expense) in obtaining disability documentation and legally-mandated accommodations. We conclude by offering recommendations for avoiding time-limited testing in higher educational assessment.

A French C-test for language assessment

“…Given that the C-test was not at ceiling level for the advanced L2 learners (Table I), it is likely to work for L1 speakers as well. If needed, the time of the test could be shortened slightly (e.g., to 14 or 12 mins), although this may further emphasize the speed factor (see Gernsbacher et al, 2020, for arguments against time-limited tests). The alternative is to add one or two paragraphs of the Raatz et al (2006) test.…”

Validated tests for language research with university students: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, reading comprehension, reading frequency, attention check

“…So, it does not seem to be a pure test of reading comprehension, as it depends exceedingly on participants' background knowledge and speed of reading. Time-limited tests usually have higher reliability, but this may be due to speed of processing rather than to the quality of processing (Gernsbacher et al, 2020). Figure 22 summarizes the findings of StudComp3.…”

Gains and losses in online learning of public and business administration students during COVID 19 pandemic: the educators’ perspective

“…The only response so far has been setting the time limit, which would make it impossible for the students to search for the information they do not readily know. However, the effectiveness of setting time limited testing is still subject to criticism as increasing pressure on the students (Stadler et al, 2021) without allowing time for reflection (Gernsbacher et al, 2020;Brothen, 2012). Time-limited tests are also viewed as less inclusive and equitable since they exclude students who are learning English, students from underrepresented backgrounds, students who are older than average, students with disabilities and other similar categories (Gernsbacher et al, 2020, p. 175).…”