AldersonJ. C. (1991). Letter. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(2), 599–603.
2.
AldersonJ. C. (1995). Response to Lumley. Language Testing, 12(1), 122–125.
3.
AldersonJ. C.LukmaniY. (1987). Cognition and reading: Cognitive levels as embodied in test questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5(2), 253–270.
4.
BejarI.DouglasD.JamiesonJ.NissanS.TurnerJ. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Listening Framework: A working paper. (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
BrindleyG.SlatyerH. (2002). Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 369–394.
6.
BuckG. (1990). The testing of second language listening comprehension. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lancaster.
7.
BuckG. (1991). The testing of listening comprehension: An introspective study. Language Testing, 8(1), 67–91.
8.
ElderC.McNamaraT.CongdonP. (2004). Rasch techniques for detecting bias in performance assessments: An example comparing the performance of native and non-native speakers on a test of academic English. In SmithE. V.JrSmithR. M. (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 419–444). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
9.
EnrightM. K.GrabeW.KodaK.MosenthalP.Mulcahy-ErntP.SchedlM. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Reading Framework: A working paper. (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10.
FischerG. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 3, 359–374.
11.
KirschI. S.MosenthalP. B. (1990). Exploring document literacy: Variables underlying the performance of young adults. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 5–30.
12.
LadoR. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London: Longmans Green.
13.
LumleyT. (1993). Reading comprehension sub-skills: Teachers’ perceptions of content in an EAP test. Language Testing, 10(3), 211–234.
14.
LumleyT. (1995). Response to Alderson. Language Testing, 12(1), 125–130.
15.
McNamaraT. (1999). Computer adaptive testing: A view from outside. In Chalhoub-DevilleM. (Ed.), Issues in computer adaptive testing of reading proficiency (pp. 136–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
McNamaraT. (2011). Measuring deficit. In CandlinC. N.CrichtonJ. (Eds.), Discourses of deficit (pp. 311–326). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
MorrowK. (1979). Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution? In BrumfitC. J.JohnsonK. (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 143–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
MossensonL.HillP.MastersG. (1987). TORCH: Tests of reading comprehension. Manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
19.
MunbyJ. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
OECD (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from the OECD programme for international student assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: OECD Publications.
21.
ShohamyE.InbarO.SolomonH. (2010, September). The impact of the PISA tests in Israel. In McNamaraT. (Chair), PISA, multilingualism and L1 language-in-education policy: A study of the impact of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading test in five national contexts. Symposium conducted at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 18 (SS18), Southampton, UK.
22.
Van AvermaetP.PulinxR. (2010, September). PISA – Flanders (Belgium). In McNamaraT. (Chair), PISA, multilingualism and L1 language-in-education policy: A study of the impact of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading test in five national contexts. Symposium conducted at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 18 (SS18), Southampton, UK.
23.
WeirC. J.HughesA.PorterD. (1990). Reading skills: Hierarchies, implicational relationships and identifiability. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(1), 505–510.
24.
WeirC. J.PorterD. (1996). The multi-divisible or unitary nature of reading: The language tester between Scylla and Charybdis. Reading in a Foreign Language, 10(2), 1–19.