Pictures are widely used to elicit expressive language skills, and pictures must be established as parallel before changes in ability can be demonstrated by assessment using pictures prompts. Why parallel prompts are required and what it is necessary to do to ensure that prompts are in fact parallel is not widely known. To date, evidence of equivalence has been documented for only a handful of picture instruments. The present study aims to demonstrate that two picture series, one describing hiking on a mountain, the other a picnic at a beach, designed to elicit narrative writing from children, are statistically parallel. To verify their being parallel, a random group design and a covariate were used. MANCOVA and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the two alternate picture forms were parallel in terms of means, variances, and factor structures with regard to multiple writing components. This study makes a unique contribution to picture-based assessment, first by publishing this parallel picture set and making it available as a tool for assessing children’s productive skills using longitudinal designs, and second by demonstrating a process by which any other test forms, pictorial or otherwise, can be validated as parallel.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. ( 1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: Authors.
2.
Bachman, L.F. ( 1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
3.
Bae, J. ( 2000). The construct validation of certain components of English and Korean writing ability in children participating in either a two-way immersion program or monolingual classes: A writing assessment and latent variable approach. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles .
4.
Bae, J., & Bachman, L.F. ( 2010). An investigation of four writing traits and two writing tasks. Language Testing, 27, 213-234.
5.
Bae, J., & Lee, Y-S. ( 2010). A longitudinal investigation into the development of children’s writing skills in an EFL Curriculum. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6.
Bentler, P.M. ( 1983). Simultaneous analysis as moment structure models: With an introduction to latent variable models. Journal of Econometrics , 22, 13-42.
Bentler, P.M., & Wu, E. ( 2008). EQS computer software for structural equation modeling . Encino, CA: Multivariate software .
9.
Berman, R., & Slobin, D.I. ( 1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
10.
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 Reports, Report 76, 44-0405). Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
11.
Brown, J.D., Hilgers, T., & Marsella, J. ( 1991). Essay prompts and topics: Minimizing the effect of differences . Written Communication, 8, 532-555.
12.
Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C.E. ( 2000). What to look for in ESL admission test: Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. System, 28, 523-539.
13.
Clause, C.S., Mullins, M.E., Nee, M.T., Pulakos, E., & Schmitt, N. ( 1998). Parallel test form development: A procedure for alternate predictors and an example. Personnel Psychology , 51, 193-208.
14.
Cliffordson, C. ( 2004). Effects of practice and intellectual growth on performance on the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test (SweSAT). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 192-204.
15.
Cronbach, L.J. ( 1947). Test ‘reliability’: Its meaning and determination . Psychometrika, 12, 1-16.
16.
Fulcher, G. ( 2000). The ‘communicative’ legacy in language testing . System, 28, 483-497.
17.
Geving, A.M., Webb, S., & Davis, B. ( 2005). Opportunities for repeat testing: Practice doesn’t always make perfect. Applied H.R.M. Research, 10, 47-56.
18.
Gronlund, N.E., & Linn, R.L. ( 1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
19.
Hausknecht, J.P., Halpert, J.A., Di Paolo, N.T., & Gerrard, M.O. ( 2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 373-385.
20.
Horn, J.L., & McArdle, J.J. ( 1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research , 18, 117-143.
21.
Hsu, L-Y. ( 2009). The effects of family background, academic achievement, and gender on the written narratives of Taiwanese second graders. Master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.
22.
Kim, Y-H. ( 2010). An argument-based validity inquiry into the Empirically-derived Descriptor-based Diagnostic (EDD) assessment in ESL academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto.
23.
Lee, Y-S., & Choi, I-C. ( 2006). The listening and reading placement test. An unpublished placement test for the English for Young Learners program. Kyungpook National University, South Korea.
24.
Lievens, F., Buyse, T., & Sackett, P.R. ( 2005). Retest effects in operational selection settings: Development and test of a framework. Personnel Psychology , 58, 981-1007.
25.
McDonald, R.P. ( 1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Pena, E.D., Gillam, R.B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., & Sabel, T. ( 2006). Dynamic assessment of school-age children’s narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classification accuracy . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1037-1057.
27.
Popham, W.J. ( 1990). Modern educational measurement: A practitioner’s perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
28.
Quereshi, M.Y. ( 2003). Absence of parallel forms for the traditional individual intelligence tests. Current Psychology, 22, 149-154.
29.
Raymond, M.R., Neustel, S., & Anderson, D. ( 2007). Retest effects on identical and parallel forms in certification and licensure testing. Personnel Psychology , 60, 367-396.
30.
Skehan, P. ( 1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction . Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
31.
Stansfield, C.W., & Ross, J. ( 1988). A long-term research agenda for the Test of Written English . Language Testing, 5, 160-186.
32.
Taris, T.W., Bok, I.A., & Meijer, Z.Y. ( 1998). Assessing stability and change of psychometric properties of multi-item concepts across different situations: A general approach . The Journal of Psychology, 132, 301-316.
33.
Torrance, E.P. ( 1998). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms-technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
34.
Ucles. (1998). Cambridge examinations, certificates & diplomas: Cambridge young learners handbook. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES).
35.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. ( 2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
36.
Weir, C.J., & Wu, J.R.W. (2006). Establishing test form and individual task comparability: A case study of a semi-direct speaking test. Language Testing, 23, 167-197.
