Please contact me if you know of other on-line publications related to language testing, which are not listed here. If the articles you wish to read are in portable document format, you may need to download an Acrobat reader.

The publications listed on this page are freely available on the internet. In your research should also consult the main Language Testing Journals and conduct literature searches on your topic. I also provide an Article Aggregation Service that lists articles on language testing published in recent issues of many applied linguistics and educational research journals. Also visit the Language Testing Bookstore.

• Amrein, A. L. and Berliner, D. C. 2002. High Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student Learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 18.
• Anonymous Evaluation and Assessment Primer Vanderbilt University
• Anonymous, 2009. Computer-based and paper-pencil test comparability. Pearson Education: Test, Measurement and Research Services Bulletin 9
• Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Beyond the Black Box.
• Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Testing, Motivation and Learning. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
• Atkinson, T and Davies, G. 2000. Computer Aided Assessment and Language Learning. ICLT4LT.
• Au, W. 2007. High Stakes Testing and Curricular Control. Educational Researcher, 36, 5.

• Bachman, L. 2005. "Building and supporting a case for test use". Language Assessment Quarterly 2, 1, 1-34.
• Bae, J. 2001. Cohesion and coherence in children's written English: Immersion and English-only classes. Issues in Applied Linguistics (ial), 12, 51-88. Reprinted online with the kind permission of ial.
• Bailey, K. M. 1999. Washback in Language Testing. Research Monograph 99-4, Princeton N.J.: Educational Testing Service
• Barton, P. E. 2009. National Education Standards. Getting beneath the surface. Policy Information Center, Princeton N.J.: Educational Testing Service
• Bayliss, A. and Ingram, D. E. 2006. IELTS as a Predictor of Academic Language Performance. Paper delivered at the Australian International Education Conference.
• Bejar, I. I. 2008. Standard setting: What is it? Why is it important? R&D Connections 7. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Bennett, R. E. 2001. "How the Internet will help large-scale assessment reinvent itself." Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 9, 5.
• Ben-Simon, A., and Bennett, R. E. 2007. Toward More Substantively Meaningful Automated Essay Scoring. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6, 1.
• Bennett, R. E. and Ben-Simon, A. 2005. Toward Theoretically Meaningful Automated Essay Scoring. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
• Bialy, J. M. 2003. "IELTS Speaking Test Preparation in the People's Republic of China: Communicative Approaches and Rote-Memorization Compared." Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Surrey.
• Biber, D., Conrad, S. M., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., et al. 2004. Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-25. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Black, P. and Wiliam, D. 1998. "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment". Phi Delta Kappa International.
• Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., Pardo-Ballester, C. 2008. "Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms". Language Learning and Technology 12, 3, 114 - 127.
• Bodmann, S. M and Robinson, D. H. 2004. "Speed and performance differences among computer based and paper -pencil tests". Journal of Educational Computing Research 31, 1, 51 - 60.
• Body, N. 2001. The revision of the IELTS speaking test. JALT Testing and Evaluation Newsletter, 5, 2, 2 - 4.
• Bolon, C. 2000. School-based Standard Testing Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 8 Number 23
• Bond, L. A. 1996. Norm- and Criterion-referenced testing. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation Washington DC.
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., and van Heerden, J. 2004. The Concept of Validity. Psychological Review 111, 4, 1061 - 1071.
• Braun, H. 2004. Reconsidering the Impact of High Stakes Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 12 Number 1
• Breland, H., Lee, Y.-W., Najarian, M., & Muraki, E . 2004. An analysis of TOEFL-CBT writing prompt difficulty and comparability for different gender groups . TOEFL Research Report RR-76. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Bridgeman, B., McBride, A., and Monaghan, W. 2004. Testing and time limits. R&D Connections 1. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Brindley, G. 1997. Assessment and the Language Teacher: Trends and Transitions Language Teacher Online, 21, 9.
• Brown, J. D. 1997. Skewness and Kurtosis Shiken 1, 1, 18 - 20.
• Brown, J. D. 1997. Computers in Language Testing: Present research and some future directions Language Learning & Technology 1, 1, 44-59.
• Brown, J. D. 2000. How can we calculate item statistics for weighted items? JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 3, 2, 19 - 21)
• Brown, J. D. 2000. What is Construct Validity? JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 4, 2, 7 - 10)
• Brown, J. D. 2002. Distractor Efficiency Analysis on a Spreadsheet. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 6, 3, 20 - 23)
• Brown, J. D. 2003. Norm-referenced item analysis (item facility and item discrimination. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 7, 2, 16 - 19)
• Brown, J. D. 2004. Performance Assessment: Existing Literature and Directions for Research. Second Langauge Studies, 22, 2, 91 - 139).
• Brualdi, A. 1999. Traditional and Modern Concepts of Validity ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation Washington DC.
• Byram, M. 2000. Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Teaching SprogForum 16, 8, 8 - 13.

• Camilli, G. 1996. Standard Errors in Educational Assessment: A Policy Analysis Perspective Education Policy Analysis Archives 4, 4.
• Carrell, P. L. 2007. Notetaking strategies and their relationship to performance on listening comprehension and communicative assessment tasks. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-35. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Carrell, P. L. , Dunkel, P. A. and Mollaun, P. 2002. The effects of notetaking, lecture length, and topic on the listening component of TOEFL 2000. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-23. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Celik, M. 1999. Testing Some Suprasegmental Features of English Speech The Internet TESL Journal, 5, 8.
• Chalhoub-Deville, M. 2001. Language Testing and Technology: Past and Future Language Learning and Technology, Vol 5, No. 2, May 2001, 95 - 98.
• Chalhoub-Deville, M. and Fulcher, G. 2003. The Oral Proficiency Interview: A Research Agenda Foreign Language Annals, 36, 4, 498 - 506.
• Chapman, M. 2003. TOEIC: Tried but Undertested. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 7, 3, 2 - 5.
• Cimbricz, S. 2002. State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10, 2.
• Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. 2006. Strategies in responding to new TOEFL reading tasks. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-33. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Comber, J. 1998. Are Test Preparation Programs Really Effective? Evaluating an IELTS Preparation Course? Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Surrey.
• Commitee on Assessment and Evaluation in Education. 2005. The Knowledge Base for Assessment and Evaluation in Education. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport; Rochschild Foundation (Yad Hanadiv).
• Coniam, D. and Falvey, P. 1999. Assessor training in a high-stakes test of speaking: The Hong Kong English language benchmarking initiative. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 8, 2.
• Coombe, C. 2002. Self-assessment in language testing: Reliability and validity issues. Karen's Linguistics Issues.
• Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. 1955. Construct Validity in Psychological Tests Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281 - 302.
• Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. E. 2005. A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL Test. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-26. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M. 2006. Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for the new TOEFL. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-30. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Cunningham, C. R. 2002. The TOEIC test and communicative competence: Do test score gains correlate with increased competence? A preliminary study. University of Birmingham, UK: MA dissertation.

• Davidson, F. and Fulcher, G. 2007. Flexibility is proof of a good 'framework'. Guardian Weekly, 17th November.
• Davies, A. 1984. Computer Assisted Language Testing. CALICO Journal 1, 5.
• Davies, A. 1997. The education (and training) of language testers. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 6, 1.
• de Jong, H.A.L. 1990. Standardization in Language Testing. AILA Review 7.
  This is the complete text of the edited volume, and contains the following papers:
  • Guest-editor's Preface
    John H. A. L. DE JONG 3-5
  • Language Testing in Research and Education: The Need for Standards
    Peter J. M. GROOT 6-23
  • The Cambridge-TOEFL Comparability Study : An example of the Cross-National Comparison of Language Tests
    Fred DAVIDSON & Lyle BACHMAN 24-45
  • The Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR)
    David E. INGRAM 46-61
  • Cross-National Standards: A Dutch-Swedish Collaborative Effort in National Standardized Testing
    John H.A.L. DE JONG & Mats OSCARSON 62-78
  • The Hebrew Speaking Test: An Example of International Cooperation in Test Development and Validation
    Elana SHOHAMY & Charles W. STANSFIELD 79-90
  • EUROCERT: An International Standard for Certification of Language Proficiency
    Alex OLDE KALTER & Paul VOSSEN 91-105
  • Response to Alex Olde Kalter and Paul Vossen
    John READ 106-107
• Dikli, A. 2006. An Overview of Automated Scoring of Essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5, 1.
• Dooey, P. 1999. An investigation into the predictive validity of the IELTS Test as an indicator of future academic success . In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/ Learning in Context, 114-118. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, Perth.
• Dorans, N. J. 2008. The practice of comparing scores on different tests. R&D Connections 6. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Dunkel, P. A. 1997. Computer-Adaptive Testing of Listening Comprehension: A Blueprint for CAT Development The Language Teacher Online, 21, 10.
• Dunkel, P. A. 1999. Considerations in developing or using second /foreign language proficiency computer-adaptive tests Language Learning & Technology 2, 2, 77-93
• Dunkin, M. J. 1997. Assessing Teachers' Effectiveness. Issues in Educational Research, 7(1), 1997, 37-51.
• Dymoke, S. (no date). Assessing Your Pupils' Poetry. Poetry Class Website Resources.

• Educational Testing Service. ETS Fairness Review & ETS Standards for Quality and Fairness.
• Elder, C. (1998). What counts as bias in language testing? Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 7, 1.
• Embretson, S. 1983. Construct Validity: Construct Representation Versus Nomothetic Span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 1, 179 - 197.
• Emmerich, W., Enright, M. K., Rock, D. A. and Tucker, C. 1991. The Development, Investigation, and Evaluation of New Item Types for the GRE Analytical Measure. Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ, ETS Research Report 91-16.
• Ennis, R. H. 1999. Test Reliability: A Practical Exemplification of Ordinary Language Philosophy. Philosophy of Education

• Feast, V. 2002. The Impact of IELTS scores on performance at university. International Education Journal, 3, 4, 70 - 85.
• Frary, R. B. 1996. Hints for Designing Effective Questionnaires Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 11
• Frary, R. B. 1995. More Multiple Choice Item Writing Do's and Don'ts. ERIC/AE Digest Series EDO-TM-95-4.
• Frary, R. B. 2002. A Brief Guide to Questionnaire Development.
• Fulcher, G. 1999. Ethics in Language testing TAE SIG Newsletter - Special Conference Issue, Volume 1, No. 1
• Fulcher, G. 2000. Computers in Language Testing In Brett, P. and G. Motteram (Eds) 2000 A Special Interest in Computers. Manchester: IATEFL Publications, 93 - 107. Reprinted in electronic format with the kind permission of IATEFL.
• Fulcher, G. 2001. Machines get clever at testing Education Guardian, 17 May.
• Fulcher, G. 2003. Few ills cured by setting scores Education Guardian, 17 April.
• Fulcher, G. 2004. Are Europe's tests being built on an 'unsafe' framework? Education Guardian, 18 March. Read the response from Brian North
• Fulcher, G. 2008. "Testing Times Ahead?" Liaison Magazine, Issue 1: July, 20 - 24. Published by the UK Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, University of Southampton.
• Fulcher, G. 2009. Test use and political philosophy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 3 - 20.

• Gebril, A. and Plakans, L. 2009. Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tasks. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment 7, 47 - 84.
• Geisinger, Kurt F. - Carlson, Janet F. 1995. Testing Students with Disabilities ERIC Digest.
• Gibson, E. J., Brewer, P. W. Dholakia, A., Vouk, M. A., and Bitzer, D. L. 1995. A Comparative Analysis of Web-Based Testing and Evaluation Systems North Carolina University.
• Gilfert, S. 1996. A Review of TOEIC The Internet TESOL Journal 11, 8.
• Ginther, A. 2001. Effects of the presence and absence of visuals on performance on TOEFL CBT listening-comprehension stimuli TOEFL Research Report 66, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
• Glass, G. V. 1978. Standards and criteria Journal of Educational Measurement 15, 4, 237 - 261.
• Godwin-Jones, B. 2001. Language Testing Tools and Technology Language Learning & Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 2001, 8-12
• Gorsuch, G. J. and Cox, T. 2000. Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something....: Piloting a Computer Mediated Version of the Michigan Listening Comprehension Test TESOL EJ 4, 4.
• Grant. S. G. 2000 Teachers and Tests: Exploring Teachers' Perceptions of Changes in the New York State Testing Program Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 14.
• Godwin-Jones, B. 2001. Emerging Tools: Language Testing Tools and Technologies. Language Learning and Technology, Vol 5, No. 2, May 2001, 8 - 12.
• Gorin, J. S. 2007. Reconsidering Issues in Validity Theory. Educational Researcher 36, 8, 456 - 462.
• Grabowski, K. C. 2007. Reconsidering the measurement of pragmatic knowledge using a reciprocal written task format. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 7, 1.
• Gruba, P. A. 1999. The role of digital video media in second language listening comprehension. University of Melbourne: Unpublished PhD thesis.

• Haji pour Nezhad, G. R. 2002. Item complexity and Judgment Revisited. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Tehran University.
• Haji pour Nezhad, G. R. 2002. Reading complexity judgments, Episode 1. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 5, 3, 2 - 5.
• Haji pour Nezhad, G. R. 2002. Reading complexity judgments, Episode 2. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 6, 1, 2 - 5.
• Haji pour Nezhad, G. R. 2002. Reading complexity judgments, Episode 3. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 6, 2, 2 - 5.
• Hamilton, L. S., Klein, S. P., and Lorie, W. No Date. Using Web-Based Testing for Large-Scale Assessment Rand Education.
• Hansen, E. G., Forer, D. C., & Lee, M. J. 2004. Toward accessible computer-based tests: Prototypes for visual and other disabilities. . TOEFL Research Report RR-78. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Harding, L. 2008. Accent and academic listening assessment: A study of test-taker perceptions. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 13, 1.
• Harlen, W. H. and Crick, R. D. 2002. A Systematic Review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning. London: Institute of Education, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre.
• Hong, W-P, 2008. Does high-stakes testing increase cultural capital among low-income and racial minority students? . Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 16, 6.
• Hguyen, T. N. H. 2007. Effects of test preparation on test performance - the case of the IELTS and TOEFL iBT Listening Tests. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 12, 1.
• Huitt, B., Hummel, J. and Kaeck, D. 1995. Assessment, Measurement, Evaluation and Research Valdosta State University
• Hutchison, D. and Benton, T. 2009. Parallel Universes and Parrallel Measures: Estimating the Reliability of Test Results. London: OFQUAL and the National Foundation for Educational Research.

• Idoine-Shirai, D. 2007. Using Mnemonics in Vocabulary Tests The Internet Teaching Journal 13, 2.
• Inoue, M. 2009. Health Sciences Communication Skills Test: The development of a rating scale. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 14, 1.

• Jacobsen, M., Kremer, R., and Flores, R. 1999 WebCT in Computer Science New Currents in Teaching and Learning, 6, 3.
• Jamieson, J., Jones, S., Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., Taylor, C. 2000 TOEFL 2000 Framework: A Working Paper Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ.
• Jia, Y., and Zhang, W. 2007 Evaluating the construct validity of an EFL test for PhD candidates: A quantitative analysis of two versions Shiken, 11, 1, 2 - 16.
• Joint Committee on Testing Practices. 2004. Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education.
American Psychological Association.

• Kane, M. 2010. Errors of Measurement, Theory, and Public Policy. 12th Annual William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Kang, O. 2008. Ratings of L2 oral performance in English: Relative impact of rater characteristics and accoustic measures of accendtedness. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment 6, 181 - 205.
• Karavas, E., and Delieza, X. 2009. On-site observation of KPG oral examiners: Implications for oral examiner training and evaluation. Journal of Applied Language Studies 3, 1, 51 - 77.
• Kehoe, J. 1995. Basic Item Analysis for Multiple-Choice Tests. ERIC Digest.
• Kehoe, J. 1995. Writing Multiple Choice Test Items. ERIC Digest.
• Kenworthy, R. 2006. Timed versus At-home Assessment Tests: Does Time Affect the Quality of Second Language Learners' Written Compositions? . TESOL-EJ 10, 1.
• Kenyon, D. M. and Malabonga, V. 2001. Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and otheroral proficiency assessments. Language Learning and Technology, Vol 5, No. 2, May 2001, 60 - 83.
• Kim, H. J. and Shin, H. W. 2006. A reading and writing placement test: Design, evaluation, and analyais. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 6, 2.
• Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., Taylor, C., and Eignor, D. 1998. Computer Familiarity Among TOEFL Examinees TOEFL Research Report 59, Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ.
• Kitao, S. K. and Kitao, K. 1996. Testing Communicative Competence Internet TESOL Journal, 2, 5.
• Kitao, S. K. and Kitao, K. 1996. Testing Grammar Internet TESOL Journal, 2, 6.
• Kitao, S. K. and Kitao, K. 1996. Testing Listening Internet TESOL Journal, 2, 7.
• Knoch, U. 2008. Collaborating with ESP Stakeholders in Rating Scale Validation: The case of the ICAO Rating Scale. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment 7, 21 - 46.
• Knoch, U. 2009. The assessment of academic style in EAP writing: The case of the rating scale. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 13, 1.
• Koretz, D., Russell, M., Shin, C. D., Horn, C. and Shasby, K. 2002. Testing and diversity in postsecondary education: The case of California Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 1.
• Kyllonen, P. C. 2005. The case for noncognitive assessments. R&D Connections 3. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

• Laborda, J. G. 2007. From Fulcher to PLEVALEX: Issues in Interface design, validity and reliability in Internet based Language Testing CALL-EJ Online 9, 1.
• Lane, S. 1999. Validity Evidence for Assessments Reidy Interactive Lecture Series

• Lazaraton, A. and Wagner, S. (1996). The Revised TSE test: Discourse Analysis of Native Speaker and Nonnative Speaker Data Research Report 96-10. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

• Lee, Y.-W., Breland, H., & Muraki, E. 2004. Comparability of TOEFL CBT writing prompts for different native language groups. . TOEFL Research Report RR-77. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Lightsone, K and Smith, S. M. 2009. Student Choice between Computer and Traditional Paper-and-Pencil University Tests: What Predicts Preference and Performance? . Revue internationale des technologies en pedagogie universitaire / International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, vol. 6, 1, 2009, p. 30-45.
• Linn, R. L. 2003. Performance Standards: Utilitily for Different Uses of Assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 11 Number 31
• Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L. and Dunbar, S. B. 1991. Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria. CSE Technical Report 331.
• Livingstone, S. A. 2009. Constructed-response test questions: Why we use them; how we score them. R&D Connections 11. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Livingston, S. A. and Zieky, M. J. 1982. Passing Scores: A Manual for Setting Standards of Performance on Educational and Occuptational Tests. . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Warning: This is a slow download. Click and then leave it alone to download.
• Liu, O L. 2009. Measuring learning outcomes in higher education. R&D Connections 10. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Loevinger, J. 1957. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports 3, 635 - 694. Southern Universities Press, Monograph Supplement 9.
• Loulou, D. 1995. Making the A: How To Study for Tests. ERIC/AE Digest Series EDO-TM-95-10

• Malone, M. 2000. Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews: Recent Developments. ERIC Digest.
• May, L. 2006. An examination of rater orientations on a paired candidate discussion task through stimulated verbal recall. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 11, 1.
• McAulay, A. 2002. Peer and Self-evaluation in Spoken Tests: Tools and Methods Internet TESOL Journal, September.
• McLean, L., Myers, M., Smillie, C., and Vaillancourt, D. 1997. Qualitative Research Methods: An essay review Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5, 13.
• McClellan, C. 2010. Constructed-Response Scoring - Doing it Right R&D Connections 13. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Mehrens, A. A. No Date. Preparing Students to Take Standardized Achievement Tests ERIC Digest.
• Messerklinger, J. 1997. Evaluating Oral Ability The Language Teacher Online, 21, 11.
• Mills, A., Swain, L. and Weschler, R. 1996. The Implementation of a First Year English Placement System Internet TESOL Journal, 2, 11.
• Milton, J. 2006. French as a Foreign Language and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Proceedngs from the Crossing Frontiers: Languages and International Dimension conference, Cardiff University, 6 - 7 July.
• Monaghan, W. 2006. The facts about subscores. R&D Connections 4. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Monaghan, W. and Bridgeman, B. 2005. E-rater as a quality control on human scores. R&D Connections 2. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Moritoshi, P. 2001. The Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC): necessity, proficiency levels, test score utilization and accuracy. University of Birmingham, UK: MA assignment.
• Moritoshi, P. 2002. Validation of the Test of English Conversation Proficiency. University of Birmingham: MA dissertation.
• Moodie, I. 2008. Using Pair Work Exams for Testing in the ESL/EFL Conversation Classes. Internet TESL Journal XIV, 8.
• Mueller, J. 2003. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. North Central College, Naperville, IL.

• Newfields, T. 2005. TOEIC Washback Effects on Teachers: A Pilot Study at One University Faculty Educational Policy Archives, 14, 1.
• Nichols, S. L. and Glass, G. V. 2006. High-Stakes Tesing and Student Achievement: Does Accountability Pressure Increase Student Learning? Toyo University Keizai Ronshu, 31, 1, 83 - 106
• North, B. 2004. 'Europe's framework promotes language discussion, not directives'. Education Guardian, 15 April. A reply to Glenn Fulcher
• Norris, J. M. 2001. Concerns with computerized adaptive oral proficiency assessment. Language Learning and Technology, Vol 5, No. 2, May 2001, 99 - 105.

• Ohkubo, N. 2009. Validating the integrated writing task of the TOEFL internet-based test (iBT): Linguistic Analysis of test takers' use of input material. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 14, 1.
• O'Loughlin, K. 2006. Learning about second language assessment: Insights from a postgraduate student on-line subject forum. . University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 1, 71 - 85
• O'Loughlin, K. 2009. Does it measure up? Benchmarking the written examination of a university English pathway program. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 14, 1.
• O'Sullivan, B. 2007. Testing Speaking in Larger Classes . Humanising Language Teaching 9, 4.

• Papajohn, D. 2006. Standard setting for next generation TOEFL Academic Speaking Test (TAST): Reflections on the ETS Panel of International Teaching Assistant Developers . TESOL-EJ 10, 1.
• Park, T. 2004. An investigation of an ESL placement test of writing using Many-facet Rasch MeasurementA> Teachers College, Columbia University Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics 4, 1.
• Phakiti, A. 2006. Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their relationship to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 11, 1.
• Poole, G. 2003. Assessing Japan's Institutional Entrance Requirements. Asian EFL Journal 5, 1.
• Praphal, K. 1990. The relevance of language testing research in the planning of language programmes. Thailand: Chulalongkorn University.

• Quinlan, T., Higgins, D., and Wolf, S. (2009). Evaluating the Construct Coverage of the e-rater Scoring Engine. Research Report 09-01. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

• Ranali, J. M. 2002. Comparing scoring procedures on a cloze test. University of Birmingham, UK: MA assignment.
• Robb, T. N. & Ercanbrack, J. 1999. A Study of the Effect of Direct Test Preparation on the TOEIC Scores of Japanese University Students TESOL-EJ, 3, 4.
• Roever, C. 2001. Web based language testing. Language Learning and Technology, Vol 5, No. 2, May 2001, 84 - 94.
• Roever, C. and Powers, D. E.. 2005. Effects of language administration on a self-assessment of language skills. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-27. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. K. . 2001. The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels. TOEFL Monograph No. MS-21. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Rosenshine, B. 2003. High Stakes Testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 11 Number 24
• Ross, J. A. 2006. The Reliability, Validity, and Utility of Self-Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation Volume 11 Number 10
• Rudner, L. 1994. Questions to ask when evaluating tests. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
• Rudner, L. 1998. An Online, Interactive, Computer Adaptive Test Tutorial. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
• Rudner, L. 2001. Reliability. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
• Rudner, L. 2006. An evaluation of IntelliMetric Essay Scoring System. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 4, 4.
• Russell, M.1999. Testing On Computers: A Follow-up Study Comparing Performance On Computer and On Paper Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 20.
• Russell, M. and Haney, W. 1997. Testing Writing on Computers: An Experiment Comparing Student Performance on Tests Conducted via Computer and via Paper-and-Pencil Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5, 3.
• Russell, M. and Haney, W. 2000. Bridging the Gap between Testing and Technology in Schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 19.

• Sanders, W. and Horn, S. P. 1995. Educational Assessment Reassessed: The Usefulness of Standardized and Alternative Measures of Student Achievement as Indicators for the Assessment of Educational Outcomes Education Policy Archives, 3, 6.
• Sarle, Warren S. 1995. Measurement theory: Frequently asked questions From the Disseminations of the International Statistical Applications Institute, 4th edition, Wichita: ACG Press, 61-66.
  Also available at: ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html
• Sawaki, Y. 2001. Comparability of Conventional and Computerized Tests of Reading in a Second Language. Language Learning and Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, May 2001, pp. 38-59 .
• Sawaki, Y. and Nissan, S. 2009. Criterion-related validity of the TOEFLiBT Listening Section. TOEFL Research Report 09-02. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Scharber, C., Dexter, A. and Riedel, E. 2008. Students' Experiences with an Automated Essay Scorer. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment.
• Sireci, S. G. 2007. On Validity Theory. Educational Researcher 36, 8, 477 - 481.
• Sokolik, M. and Duber, J. 2002. Grow Your Own: Online Placement Testing TESL-EJ, 6, 1.
• Stansfield, C. W. 1992. ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
• Stansfield, C. W. 1996. Content Assessment in the Native Language Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
• Stansfield, C. W. & Kenyon, D. 1996. Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews: An Update Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
• State of Illinois. 1995. Assessment Handbook. A Guide for Developing Assessment Programs in Illinois Schools Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education.
• Stricker, L. J. 2002. The Performance of Native Speakers of English and ESL Speakers on the Computer-Based TOEFL and the GRE General Test. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, TOEFL Research Report 69.
• Swain, M., Huang, L-S, Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., and Lapkin, S. 2009. The Speaking Section of the TOEFL iBT: Test-takers' Reported Strategic Behaviors. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, TOEFLiBT Research Report 09-30.

• Tannenbaum, J. 1996. Practical Ideas On Alternative Assessment For ESL Students Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
• Tannenbaum, R. J. and Wylie, E. C. 2008. Linking English language test scores onto the Common European Framework of Reference: An application of standard setting methodology. TOEFL iBT Report iBT-06. Princeton, N.J: Educational Testing Service.
• Tasdemir, M., Tasdemir, A., and Yildirim, K. (2009) Influence of Portfolio Evaluation in Cooperative Learning on Student Success. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5, 1, 53 - 66.
• Taylor, C. S. and Nolan, S. B. 1996. What does the psychometrician's classroom look like? Reframing assessment concepts in the context of learning. Educational Policy Archives, 14, 7.
• Taylor, C., Jamieson, J., Eignor, D., & Kirsch, I. 1998. The relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based TOEFL test tasks. . TOEFL Research Report RR-61. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Tsang, S. L., Katz, A. and Stack, J. 2008. Achieving Testing for English Language Learners, Ready or Not?. Educational Policy Archives, 16, 1.
• Tuzi, F. 1997. Using Microsoft Word to Generate Computerized Tests Internet TESOL Journal, 3, 11.

• Wagner, A. No Date. Don't Messick around with Test Validity until you know what you're doing.
• Wagner, E. 2002. Video listening tests: A pilot study. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2, 1.
• Wagner, E. 2007. Are They Watching? Test-Taker Viewing Behavior During an L2 Video Listening Test. Language Learning and Technology, 11, 1.
• Walker, M. E. 2007. Is test score reliability necessary? R&D Connections 5. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Wall, D., & Horak, T. 2006. The impact of changes in the TOEFL examination on teaching and learning in central and eastern Europe. Phase I: The baseline study . TOEFL Monograph No. MS-34. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Wall, D., & Horak, T. 2008. The impact of changes in the TOEFL examination on teaching and learning in central and eastern Europe. Phase 2: Coping with change . TOEFL iBT Report No. iBT-05. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Wang, J., and Brown, M. S. 2007. Automated Essay Scoring Versus Human Scoring: A Comparative Study. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6, 2.
• Wendler, C. and Powers, D. 2009. What does it mean to repurpose a test? R&D Connections 9. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Wilson, N. 1998. Educational Standards and the Problem of Error. Educational Policy Archives, 6, 10.
• Wolfe, E. W. and Manalo, J. R. 2004. Composition Medium Comparability in a Direct Assessment of Non-native English Speakers. Language Learning and Technology, 8, 1, 52 - 65.
• Wright, P. W. D. and Wright, P. D. 2004. Understanding Tests and Measurements for the Parent and Advocate. LDOnline.
• Wylie, E. An overview of the International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR). Australia: Griffith University Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages.

• Xi, X., Higgins, D., Zechner, K. and Williamson, D. M. (2008). Automated Scoring of Spontaneous Speech Using SpeechRater v1.0. Research Report 08-62. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

• Yen, D. A. and Kuzma, J. No date. Higher IELTS score, higher academic performance? The validity of IELTS in predicting the academic performance of Chinese students. Mimeo: University of Worcester.
• Yoff, L. 1997. 'An overview of ACTFL proficiency interviews. A test of speaking ability.' JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 1, 2, 3 - 9.
• Young, J. W. 2008. Ensuring valid test content tests for English language learners. R&D Connections 8. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Young, J. W. and King T. C. 2008. 'Testing Accommodations for English Language Learners: A Review of State and Disctrict Policies. New York: College Board.

• Zimmerman, D. W. and Zumbo, B. D. 2009. Hazards in choosing between pooled and separate variances t tests. Psicologica 30, 371 - 390.
• Zumbo, B. D. 2009. Validity as Contextualized and Pragmatic Explanation, and Its Implications for Validation Practice. In Robert W. Lissitz (Ed.) The Concept of Validity: Revisions, New Directions and Applications, (pp. 65-82). IAP - Information Age Publishing, Inc.: Charlotte, NC.

• Review of Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom by Andrew D. Cohen Robert Bayley
• Review of Essential Words for the TOEFL by S. J. Matthiesen Marsha Bensoussan
• Review of TOEFL Mentor by Thomas N. Robb
• Review of Longman Introductory Course for the TOEFL Test by D. Phillips Helen Huntley
• Review of Learning about Language Assesment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions by Kathleen Bailey Nat Bartels
• Review of Toward Speaking Excellence: The Michigan Guide to Maximizing Your Performance on the TSE® Test and SPEAK® Test by Dean Papajohn Nat Bartels
• Review of Validation in Language Assessment edited by Antony John Kunnan Christine Coombe
• Review of Issues in Computer-Adaptive Testing of Reading Proficiency Edited by Micheline Chalhoub-Deville Marisol Fernández-Garcia
• Review of Computer-Adaptive Testing: A Primer Edited by Howard Wainer John M. Norris
• Review of Hot Potatoes by Stewart Ameil, Martin Holmes and Hilary Street Paula Winke and David McGregor
• Review of Test Pilot by Clear Learning Charlene Polio
• Review of Resources in Language Testing by Glenn Fulcher Jean W. LeLoup and Robert Ponterio
• Review of Criterion-referenced Language Testing by J. D. Brown and T. Hudson Hyeong-Jong Lee
• Review of The Art of Nonconversation by Marysia Johnson Jim Bame
• Review of Testing Second Language Speaking by Glenn Fulcher Ruth Breeze
• Review of Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced Resource Book by Glenn Fulcher and Fred Davidson Tim Newfields
• Review of Language Testing: The Social Dimension by Tim McNamara and Carsten Roever Daniel O. Jackson
• Review of Examining Writing: Research and Practice in Assessing Second Language Writing by Stuart Shaw and Cyril Weir Wayne Rimmer

ERIC Collections

• Eric Digests

CRESST Collections

• Newsletters

ETS Collections

• The ETS Download Center
• ETS Research
• TOEFL publications

From 2004 it is possible to search ETS publications for Research Reports that are relevant to your work:

• ReSEARCHER

International Test Commission

• Newsletter

UCLES

• Research Notes

Teachers College, Columbia University

• Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics

National Assessment Summit

• Papers

Journals marked with an asterisk are full text.

• Asian EFL Journal*
• Education Week on the Web*
• Educational Policy Analysis Archives*
• Educational Researcher Online*
• Internet TESOL Journal*
• Journal of Applied Language Studies*
• International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning
• Language Assessment Quarterly
• Language Learning and Technology*
• Language Testing
• Language Magazine
• The Language Teacher Online
• Melbourne Papers in Language Testing*
• Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation*
• Rasch Measurement Transaction: an Electronic Journal*
• Psicologica*
• The Reading Matrix *
• Shiken *
  JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter
• TESL-EJ An electronic journal of EFL/ESL*
• Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment *
• Journal of Theory and Practice in Education*
  
• Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Language Testing*
  
• University of Sydney Papers in TESOL*