Comparing Two Theories of Grammatical Knowledge Assessment: A Bifactor-MIRT Analysis

Autor/in	Cai, Yuyang
Titel	Comparing Two Theories of Grammatical Knowledge Assessment: A Bifactor-MIRT Analysis
Quelle	In: Language Learning in Higher Education, 4 (2014) 1, S.59-76 (18 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2191-611X
DOI	10.1515/cercles-2014-0005
Schlagwörter	Grammar; Comparative Analysis; Medical Education; Nursing Education; Language Tests; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Item Response Theory; Communicative Competence (Languages); Asians; Foreign Countries; Test Items; Goodness of Fit; Factor Structure; Vocabulary Skills; Syntax; Statistical Analysis; Undergraduate Students; Classification; China + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Grammatik; Medizinische Ausbildung; Pflegepädagogik; Language test; Sprachtest; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Zweitsprachenerwerb; Item-Response-Theorie; Communicative competence; Languages; Kommunikative Kompetenz; Sprache; Asian; Asiat; Asiatin; Asiaten; Asiate; Ausland; Test content; Testaufgabe; Faktorenstruktur; Aktiver Wortschatz; Statistische Analyse; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem
Abstract	This study compares two approaches to grammatical knowledge in language assessment: the structural view that regards grammatical knowledge as vocabulary and syntax (Bachman 1990), and the communicative view that perceives it as the binary combination of grammatical form and meaning (Purpura 2004). 1,491 second-year nursing students from eight medical colleges in China took a fifteen-item English grammar test (GT) that used retired items from the Language and Use section of the Public English Test System, Level Two. Data analysis comprised a series of dimensionality assessments (DAs) based on bifactor-multidimensional item response theory (bifactor-MIRT). This involved assessing the model fit achieved by structuring the GT tasks using a single grammatical factor, the structural approach and the communicative approach, and then comparing the relative performance of the three approaches. The results indicated that 1) despite its operational attraction, a unidimensional structure was insufficient to structure the GT tasks; 2) both the structural and the communicative approaches could sufficiently explain the underlying structure of the GT tasks; but 3) the communicative approach seemed to outperform the structural approach in uncovering the factual structure of the GT tasks. The study shows how bifactor-MIRT can be used to compare grammatical knowledge theories. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	De Gruyter Mouton. Available from: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. 121 High Street, Third Floor, Boston, MA 02110. Tel: 857-284-7073; Fax: 857-284-7358; e-mail: service@degruyter.com; Web site: http://www.degruyter.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01