The use of translated versions of formal educationalassessments is becoming more
common in the United States of America (USA). This is due to two converging factors:
1) legislation passed during the Clinton and Bush administrations;
2) an influx of non-English-speaking immigrants, especially from Latin America.
Against this background, this article discusses theoretical and practical issues
pertaining to the translation or adaptation of educational assessments in the USA.
These issues include the role of language proficiency and academic background in
performance on standards-based achievement tests in different languages, factors
affecting the decision whether to translate tests, translation methods and
procedures, the degree to which translated tests are used in the USA, current laws
influencing the use of translation, and the role that language testing specialists
may play in this arena.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alderman, D. L.1982:
Language proficiency as a moderator variable in testing academic aptitude
. Journal of Educational Psychology74,
580-587
.
2.
Alderson, J. C.
and
Urquhart, A. H.1983: The effect of student background discipline on
comprehension: a pilot study. In
Hughes, A.
and
Porter, D.
, editors, Current developments in language testing.
London: Academic Press
, 121-128.
3.
Alderson, J. C.
and
Urquhart, A. H.1985:
The effect of students’ academic discipline on their performance
on ESP reading tests
. Language Testing2,
192-204
.
4.
Bernard, H. R.1988: Research methods in cultural anthropology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
.
5.
Bernard, H. R.1994: Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative
approaches. 2nd edition.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
.
6.
Brislin, R.1970:
Back translation for cross-cultural research
. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology1,
185-216
.
7.
Brislin, R.1976: Translation: applications and research.
New York: Gardner
.
8.
Brislin, R.1986: The wording and translation of research
instruments. In
Lonner, W. J.
and
Berry, J. W.
, editors, Field methods in cross-cultural psychology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
, 137-164.
9.
Brislin, R.
,
Lonner, W. J.
and
Thorndike, R. L.1973: Cross-cultural research methods.
New York: John Wiley
.
10.
Cummins, J.1984: Wanted: a theoretical framework for relating language
proficiency to academic proficiency among bilingual students. In
Rivera, C.
, editor, Language proficiency and academic achievement.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
, 2-19.
11.
Elder, C.1997:
What does test bias have to do with fairness
? Language Testing14,
261-277
.
12.
Garcia, T.
,
del Rio Parent, L.et al.2000: Study of a dual language test booklet in 8th grade
mathematics: final report.
Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research
.
13.
Gunnarsson, B.1978: A look at the content similarities between intelligence,
achievement, personality, and language tests. In
Oller, J. W., Jr.
and
Perkins, K.
, editors, Language in education: testing the tests.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
, 17-35.
14.
Hale, G.1988:
Student major field and test content: interactive effects on reading
comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language
. Language Testing5,
49-61
.
15.
Hambleton, R. K.1993:
Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies
. European Journal for Psychological Assessment9,
57-68
.
16.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
. 1999: Standards for educational and psychological
testing.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association
.
17.
Liu, K. K.
,
Anderson, M. E.
and
Swierzbin, B.1999: Bilingual accommodations for limited English proficient
students on statewide reading tests: phase 1.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes
.
18.
Marin, G.
and
Marin, B. V.1991: Research with Hispanic populations.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
.
19.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
. 1996, April: Title I, Part A policy guidance: Improving
basic programs operated by local educational agencies, guidance on standards,
assessments, and accountability.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education
.
20.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
. 2000, April: Summary guidance on the inclusion requirement
for Title I final assessments.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education
.
21.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
. 2002, July: Final regulations. Federal Register 67,
Pages 45037-45047.
22.
Oller, Jr., J. W.
and
Perkins, K.
, editors, 1978: Language in education: testing the
tests.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
.
23.
Rivera, C.
,
Stansfield, C. W.
,
Scialdone, L.
and
Sharkey, M.2000: An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and
accommodation of English Language Learners in state assessment programs during
1998-99.
Arlington, VA: George Washington University,
Center for Equity and Excellence in Education
.
24.
Sireci, S. G.1997:
Problems and issues in linking assessment across languages
. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice16,
12-19
.
25.
Spolsky, B.1997:
The ethics of gatekeeping tests: what have we learned in a hundred years
? Language Testing14,
242-248
.
26.
Stansfield, C. W.1998: A brief consideration of two test administration
accommodations for LEP students: the use of one parallel column test booklet
versus two different test booklets and the use of bilingual dictionaries versus
glossaries.
Arlington, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service
.
27.
Stansfield, C. W.1997: Experiences and issues related to the format of bilingual
tests.
Springfield, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 423-306
.
28.
Stansfield, C. W.
and
Kahl, S. R.
1998:
Lessons learned from a tryout of Spanish and English versions of a state assessment
. Paper presented at a symposium on multilingual versions of tests
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
San Diego, CA. Springfield, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 423-306.
29.
Stansfield, C. W.
,
Bowles, M.
and
Rivera, C.
in progress: Case studies of state policies and practices concerning
test translation.
Washington, DC: George Washington University
.
30.
US Congress1994a: Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Public Law 103- 227.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office
.
31.
US Congress1994b: Improving America’s Schools Act. Public Law
103-382.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office
.
32.
US Congress 2002: No Child Left Behind Act. Public Law 107-110.
(H.R.1) (Sections 1111(3)(C); 1111(b)(3)(F); and 1111(b)(5). Available online at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf
33.
Werner, O.
and
Campbell, D. T.1970: Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem
of decentering. In
Naroll, R.
and
Cohen, R.
, editors, A handbook of cultural anthropology.
New York: American Museum of Natural History
, 398-420.
34.
Woods Chapman, C.
1996:
Assessing language minority students for improved accountability
. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on
Measurement in Education. Chicago, IL.
