Restricted accessBook reviewFirst published online 2014-4
Book review: Aligning Frameworks of Reference in Language Testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
BachmanL. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 1–34.
4.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
ChapelleC. A. (2008). The TOEFL validity argument. In ChapelleC. A.EnrightM. K.JamiesonJ. M. (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (pp. 319–352). London: Routledge.
6.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
FulcherG. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253–266.
8.
KaneM. (2006). Validity. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
9.
LoweP. (1983). The ILR Oral Interview: Origins, applications, pitfalls and implications. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 16(2), 230–244.
10.
LoweP. (1986). Proficiency: Panacea, framework, process? A reply to Kramsch, Schulz and particularly to Bachman and Savignon. Modern Languages Journal, 70(4), 391–397.
11.
McNamaraT. (2006). Validity in language testing: The challenge of Sam Messick’s legacy. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(1), 31–51.
12.
MislevyR. J.SteinbergL. S.AlmondR. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1(1), 3–62.
13.
NorthB. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.
14.
NorthB.SchneiderG. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing, 15(2), 217–262.