Alignment Of The Global Scale Of English To Other Scales: The . - Pearson
Global Scale of EnglishResearch SeriesAlignment of the GlobalScale of English to other scales:the concordance between PTEAcademic, IELTS, and TOEFLApril 2017Dr John H.A.L. de JongDr Veronica Benigno
02Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017ContentsExecutive summary 3Background 3Alignment of PTE Academic GSE scores to CEFR levels 4Alignment of PTE Academic GSE scores to IELTS and TOEFL scores 6Additional evidence of score reliability 7PTE Academic dimensionality 7Score reliability in comparison to other scales 8Conclusions 13References 14Glossary 16Appendix 17
03Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017Executive SummaryThe question of how different language proficiency testsrelate to each other is key to the theoretical discussionon consequential aspects of test validity because itprovides an indication of how test scores are used andunderstood by stakeholders and in local decision-makingby individual academic institutions. The Global Scaleof English (henceforth: GSE) is a linear transformationof the logit scale underlying the descriptors developedby North (2000) to describe the proficiency levels ofthe Common European Framework of Reference forLanguages (henceforth: CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001).The scale, ranging from 10 to 90, was first used as thereporting scale for the Pearson Test of English Academic(Pearson, 2010) and validated by aligning it to otherinternational proficiency scales such as IELTS and TOEFL(De Jong, 2009a; Pearson, 2010; Zheng & De Jong, 2011; DeJong & Zheng, 2016). This paper provides a summary ofthe evidence of the link between PTE Academic and twoother major high-stake tests, IELTS and TOEFL, with thepurpose of showing how TOEFL and IELTS scores relate toGSE scores.BackgroundMany studies have been conducted to investigate whetherhigh-stakes tests such as PTE Academic, TOEFL and IELTS areable to predict students’ success in their academic studies.Mixed findings of studies on predictive validity suggest thatthe relationship between test performance and academicperformance is difficult to ascertain (Bayliss & Ingram, 2006;Cho & Bridgeman, 2012; Graham, 1987; Elder, 1993; Woodrow,2006). A number of difficulties arise when attempting tocorrelate test scores to academic performance due to thefact that a single measure, in this case English proficiency,is not sufficient to provide an accurate picture of academicperformance, a multidimensional and complex reality. Twomajor difficulties can be identified. Firstly, it is impossible toanalyse a fully representative data set of test-takers’ abilitygiven that individuals below the required minimum entry scoredo not enter academic life and are therefore not included inthe research sample under investigation. Secondly, academicsuccess is not exclusively determined by English proficiency butdepends on a number of other variables such as the students’background, their subject of study, the effect of instruction,their preparation and motivation for academic success, and
04Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017the measures and criteria universities use to determine theirstudents’ success. Nowadays, many researchers point outthat high-stakes tests function as gatekeepers (Spolsky, 1997)and this may imply serious consequences for students if themeasurement of their language ability is not accurate andreliable.The validity argument around PTE Academic and its reportingscale, the Global Scale of English, is supported by evidenceof: a) the relation of PTE Academic scores to the levels of theCEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), which is based on independentexpert ratings of test items and candidate responses (Pearson,2010); and b) the relation of PTE Academic with TOEFL andIELTS, which is based on a comparison of students’ scoresachieved on PTE Academic with IELTS/TOEFL scores obtainedwithin two months of their PTE Academic score (Zheng & DeJong, 2011), as well as on data provided by ETS and Cambridgeabout the concordance between TOEFL and IELTS (Taylor,2004; Tannenbaum & Wylie, 2008; Liao, Qu & Morgan, 2010;ETS, 2015).Alignment of PTE Academic GSEscores to CEFR levelsPTE Academic alignment research adhered to theguidelines provided in the Manual for relating LanguageExaminations to the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2009),following the stages of familiarization, specification,standardisation and validation. The Global Scale ofEnglish, the reporting scale first used for reportingPTE Academic scores, was developed during the testdevelopment phase by indexing it against the originallogit values of the CEFR. The validity of the alignmentof PTE Academic to the CEFR was demonstrated bygathering independent expert ratings of test items andcandidate responses (Zheng & De Jong, 2011; De Jong &Zheng, 2016). The two independently derived estimatesof the correspondence of PTE Academic scores with CEFRproved to be highly correlated (r 0.99). Two approacheswere followed: An item-centred approach was used to relate the IRT difficultyvalues of each item to CEFR levels. Item writers developingitems for PTE Academic were instructed to write itemsoperationalising the B1, B2 and C1 levels of the CEFR. Aftersubmission of the items, the level assignments suggested bythe item writers were reviewed by independent raters; where
05Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017discrepancy occurred, a third rating was gathered. For eachitem, the estimated difficulty on the CEFR scale indicatedduring the item development and item review stages wascompared with the observed difficulty value establishedduring the field test. A test-taker centred approach was used to analyse thetest-takers’ ability. Five items from two speaking and onewriting item types were selected. For each response, theability estimate (on the CEFR) provided by two human raterswas compared with the ability estimate based on scoredresponses of the PTE Academic items.The alignment of the GSE to the CEFR has been corroboratedthrough the extension of the set of descriptors publishedin the CEFR framework in 2001. Since 2013 Pearson hasworked on substantially increasing the number of descriptorsoriginally provided in the CEFR and on scaling them, replicatingthe methodology used by North (2000). The GSE LearningObjectives for Adult Learners s-for-adults were developed to overcomesome of the limitations of the CEFR, e.g., the scarcity ofdescriptors at the lower and higher levels and the unevendistribution of descriptors over the four skills. As a result, theGlobal Scale of English provides more granular informationabout language proficiency than is possible with the CEFR.Since the CEFR only contains exemplary descriptors, the newGSE Learning Objectives add detail about the linguistic activitiesrequired at each level and thereby increase the accuracy of themeasurement scale.The Global Scale of English alignment with the CEFR (see Figure1) can only be fully understood if it is supported by informationshowing what it really means to be at a level. Being at a CEFRlevel is defined as having a 50% probability of being able toperform all language activities at that given level of proficiency.If this proficiency level is defined as an interval on a scale, e.g.,B1 on the CEFR, being at B1 means one is expected to beable to perform 50% of all tasks at B1, or to have 50% chanceof being able to perform any task at B1. If this proficiency isdefined as a point on a scale, e.g. 40 on the GSE, then one isexpected to be able to perform 50% of all tasks which are at 40on the GSE or to have a 50% chance of being able to performany task at 40 on the GSE.FIGURE 1Alignment of the Global Scale of Englishto the CEFR
Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017Learning a language is not like learning mathematics orelectrical engineering, where each topic builds upon a previousone in a logical sequence. Language learning is not necessarilysequential, and a learner might be highly proficient in one area,where they have had extensive practice or where they feel aparticular need or motivation, but quite weak in another. Forthat reason, to say that a learner is ‘at’ a certain level on theGlobal Scale of English does not mean he/she has necessarilymastered every GSE Learning Objective for every skill up to thatpoint. Neither does it mean that he/she has mastered noneat a higher GSE value. Language learning is unique to everyindividual and the definition of what it means to be at a level isbased on probability: if a learner is considered to be level 61on the Global Scale of English, he/she has a 50% likelihood ofbeing capable of performing learning objectives at that level– and a greater probability of being able to perform learningobjectives at a lower GSE level, such as 50 or 37. As proficiencyincreases, the probability of being able to perform the learningobjectives at 61 also increases (see Figure 2).Likelihood of correct GURE 22030405060708090GSE task difficultyAlignment of PTE Academic GSEscores to IELTS and TOEFL scoresPTE Academic has been field-tested using over 10,000test-takers. Field testing took place in 2007 and 2008.Test-takers were representative of the global populationof students seeking admission to universities and othertertiary education institutions where English is thelanguage of instruction. Test-takers were born in 158different countries and spoke 126 different languages.As reported by Zheng and De Jong (2011), a concordancestudy between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL was conductedduring the field test using test-takers’ self-reported scores(accompanied, if available, by a copy of their official scoreA learner at 61 on the GSE
07Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017report). Based on the relationship between scores reported bytest-takers and scores obtained in PTE Academic, concordancetransformation functions were generated between PTEAcademic, TOEFL iBT, and IELTS using best fitting regressionfunctions. This study was repeated during the PTE Academicbeta test when again test-takers’ scores on the other two testswere collected. The correlation between reported scores andmean scores from the same test-takers as predicted from theirPTE Academic score was found to range between .73 and .83(see Pearson, 2010 for further details).Additional evidence of the concordance between the threetests was gathered by using data provided by ETS about linkingTOEFL iBT to IELTS (ETS, 2015) and to the CEFR (Tannenbaumand Wylie, 2008). Claims about the relation between IELTS andthe CEFR are explained on the IELTS website (IELTS, n.d.), butthe findings of ETS and De Jong (2009a) suggest the claimedcorrespondence is at least one CEFR level too high. Datafrom test-takers were analysed yielding standard descriptivestatistics by skill and overall score. Relations among the majorEnglish tests and their relations with the CEFR are summarizedin the concordance chart presented in the Appendix.Additional evidence of scorereliabilityAdditional evidence on PTE Academic score reliabilityand the validity of the GSE can be provided with regardto: a) the test dimensionality; and b) the score reliabilityas supported by evidence obtained via the analysisof test repeaters’ behaviour and in relation to thegranularity of the GSE.PTE Academic dimensionalityPTE Academic validity was first demonstrated in a studyconducted by De Jong (2009b) based on field test data and laterby a similar study conducted by Reckase & Jing-Ru (2014) on amuch larger sample of live test data. De Jong (2009b) analysedthe field test data. De Jong showed that although there isessential unidimensionality in a large dataset representative ofthe total target population, test-takers from different languagebackgrounds have different profiles. For example, studentswhose first language is Mandarin tend to score relatively higheron the written skills, whereas test-takers from India tend toscore higher on the spoken skills. Reckase and Jing-Ru (2014)corroborated De Jong’s findings and suggested that the totalscore can be reported on a single unidimensional scale while at
Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017the same time reporting subscores provides useful informationto help guide instruction/preparation. This second study useddata from 37,140 examinees, 954 items, and 164 test forms.The authors found that test-takers with the same L1 showedsimilar score patterns on specific test items – but differentfrom test-takers with a different L1. This study is important inthat it shows that subscores can provide useful informationabout different constructs for multiple examinee groups eventhough the test data are considered to be a good fit to aunidimensional model.Score reliability in comparison to other scalesOne piece of evidence of the reliability of PTE Academic scorescomes from the analysis of test repeaters’ data. Internalinvestigation of changes in test scores based on the frequencyat which the exam is taken recorded no accuracy fluctuationin score when test-takers resit after short periods. A sampleof around 2,000 test-takers was analysed showing that 75%of repeaters obtain scores within the 95% error margin onthe overall score and 10% test-takers have zero change onrepeating PTE Academic. Data are shown in Figures 3a and3b for TOEFL and PTE Academic respectively. These dataare higher than for TOEFL iBT who report data showing zerochange for about 5% of test-takers (Zhang, 2008, figure 5,page 10) indicating less score change on PTE Academic thanon TOEFL on repeating the test. More detailed information onscore changes for test repeaters on PTE Academic are reportedby Barkaoui (forthcoming).Total Scaled ScorePct of Candidates081050-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -505 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Score ChangeFIGURE 3aFrequency distributions of total scaledscore changes for PTE Academicrepeaters
Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017Total Scaled ScorePct of Candidates091050-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -505 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Score ChangeAdditionally, internal research has been conducted to comparePTE Academic test design and scoring information with thoseof TOEFL and IELTS. The relation between PTE Academic andTOEFL iBT scores is corroborated by the agreement of therelation of both instruments with the CEFR. Such corroborationvia the CEFR could not be found for the relation between PTEAcademic and IELTS scores, although it can be found in thereported score equivalences between TOEFL iBT and IELTS(ETS, 2015). This ETS study can be used as a triangulation:if A B and B C, then A C. In test scores: if, as found in thePearson concordance study, PTE Academic scores 53-63correspond to TOEFL iBT scores 79-93, and TOEFL iBT scores79-93 correspond to IELTS 6.5, then we would expect IELTS6.5 to correspond to PTE Academic 53-63. Indeed, we foundevidence to support this assumption: a study to predict a scoreof 6.5 on IELTS corresponded to test-takers obtaining 58-64 onPTE Academic.PTE Academic has been designed to measure all four skills, asboth ‘pure’ skills and integrated with other skills, with around100 score points per skill and about 250 raw score pointsfor the overall score. The more score points, the greaterthe accuracy of the measurement. Tables 1 and 2 show thedifferences between the way speaking and writing abilitiesare measured in the three tests. PTE Academic presentsmore points of measurement and therefore shows a greateraccuracy. We should also point out that, in terms of test design,IELTS and TOEFL iBT stimuli present scripted language thathas been specifically written for the test (no spontaneous livelanguage). PTE Academic uses only ‘found’ texts, i.e. real texts(written texts or live recordings of speech).FIGURE 3bFrequency distributions of total scaledscore changes for TOEFL repeaters(Zhang, 2008, figure 5, page 10)
010 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017IELTSTOEFL iBTPTE AcademicThree task types(independent); one task fromeach and variable number ofquestions; total of 3 tasksThree task types (oneindependent, twointegrated); two tasks fromeach; total of 6 tasksFive task types (one independent,four integrated); between 3 and 10tasks each; total of 35 tasksMax raw score 4; ‘criterionareas’ rated on 9 band scales:4 x 9 36; arithmeticallyreduced to a band of 0 to 9speaking score; raw scoredivided by 4 reported bandscoreMax raw score 6; tasks eachrated on 4 aspects: 6 x 4 24; IRT scaled to 0 to 30point reporting scaleMax Raw score: average task score 3 points: 35 tasks x 3 points 105 points; IRT scaled to a 10 to90 point reporting score1. Informal introductions &some everyday questions1. Two everyday questions1. Six tasks: Speaking & Reading:Read aloud written language textsof 40 to 60 words on academictopic2. Monologue based on taskcard3. Discussion based on topicin task 22. Two questions based oncombined information fromheard and read texts onuniversity life and academictopics.3. Two questions based ondiscussion of university lifeand lecture excerpts2. Ten tasks: Listening & Speaking:Repeat sentence of typical spokenlanguage3. Six tasks: Speaking: Describeimage, (semi)academic topics4. Three tasks: Listening &Speaking: Re-tell lecture onacademic topic5. Ten Tasks: Listening & Speaking:Answer short question onuniversity life and academic topicsTABLE 1Assessment of spoken skills in IELTS,TOEFL iBT, and PTE Academic
011 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017IELTSTOEFL iBTPTE AcademicTwo task types (bothindependent); one task fromeach; total of 2 tasksTwo task types (oneindependent, oneintegrated); one task fromeach; total of 2 tasks6 task types (one independent, fiveintegrated); total of 15 tasksMax raw score: 2 tasks, eachrated on 4 ‘criterion areas’using 9 band scales: 2 x 4 x 9 72; arithmetically reducedto a band 0 to 9 writing score:raw score divided by 8 reported band scoreMax raw score: 2 tasks eachrated on 5 point rating scale:2 x 5 10; IRT scaled to a 0to 30 point reporting scaleMax Raw score: points added overall items and item types; averagescore per item: 6 points; 15 tasks x 6 90 points; IRT scaled to a 10to 90 point reporting score1. Describe information fromgraph, chart, diagram1. Answer a question basedon information read andheard on academic topic1. Two tasks: Reading & Writingand Summarize written text in asingle sentence2. Answer a question basedon own knowledge andexperience2. Two tasks: Listening & Writingand Fill in the blanks. Thestimulus presents a real-life,authentic audio excerpted froman academic lecture. The stimulusalso presents a reading text whichis a transcription of the audiorecording with 4-7 words missingfrom the text2. Write essay on providedtopic3. Two tasks: Listening & Writingand Write from dictation: Thestimulus presents a short sentenceof 8-11 words on academic topic4. Two tasks: Listening & Writingand Summarize spoken text onacademic topic. Word limit: 50-70words.5. One task: Write essay. Testtakers express their views on ageneral academic topic. Test-takerswrite a persuasive essay andsupport their position or opinionswith details and examples. Wordlimit: 200- 300 words6. Five tasks: Reading & Writingand Fill in the blanks; the stimuluspresents a real-life gapped readingtext from an academic source. Thetext is 100-200 words long. It iscontinuous (written in paragraphs)and coherentTABLE 2Assessment of written skills in IELTS,TOEFL iBT, and PTE Academic
012 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017Every measurement in an assessment contains a degree oferror, referred to as the “error of measurement”. The true scoreof a test-taker is therefore within a range of scores around thereported score. The extent of that range is determined by thesize of the error of measurement. For example, if the reportedscore is 60 and the error of measurement is 3, then the truescore, with 68% certainty, is within one measurement errorfrom the reported score; that is within the range of 57 (60-3)and 63 (60 3). The true score, with 95% certainty, is withintwice the measurement error; that is within the range of 54 (602x3) to 66 (60 2x3).PTE Academic has been carefully compiled to maximizescore comparability between the four skills using parallel testinformation functions. In Classical Test Theory, the error ofmeasurement is an estimate of the error at any point on thescale; it is calculated without taking into account whether thescore is low, medium or high. Based on data from 30,000test-takers, the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) onPTE Academic is 2.32. By contrast, in Item Response Theory,the error of measurement is not uniform on the scale. TheConditional Error of Measurement (CEM) on PTE Academicoverall score varies from 2.5 to 3.5 depending on the CEFRlevel, with error at 2.41 being lowest for scores in the B1 range(GSE 40-58) and below 3 from A1 to C1. Based on the CEM,test reliability in the GSE range 53-79 (the most relevant fortertiary education admission purposes) is calculated to be0.97 for the overall score and 0.91 for all subskills except forlistening which is at 0.92. Figure 4 below compares the errorof measurement expressed on the GSE for PTE Academic withthose transformed to the GSE for TOEFL iBT and IELTS.2xSEMRangePSEScore 5949PTE Academic11 points54-64TOEFL iBT17 points50-67IELTS18 points51-695153555759616365676971PTE AcademicTOEFL iBTIELTSFIGURE 4Error of measurement for PTEAcademic, TOEFL iBT, and IELTSexpressed on the GSE
013 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017ConclusionsThe Global Scale of English offers a granular descriptivesystem to define graded learning, teaching andassessment objectives. It is mathematically defined as alinear transformation of the scale underlying the levelsof the CEFR.Empirically based estimates of concordance between the threemajor English tests used for the admittance requirements offoreign students are available from previously reported studies.Evidence of the reliability and validity of the GSE scale ispresented and an explanation for the higher reliability of PTEAcademic vs. IELTS and TOEFL is offered based on an analysisof the tests’ composition. Assertions about higher reliability ofPTE Academic are also supported by evidence on comparingtest repeater data from PTE Academic and TOEFL (no such dataare publically available for IELTS).
014 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017ReferencesBarkaoui, K. (forthcoming). Examining Changes over Time in Repeaters’ L2Writing Scores: The Case of PTE-Academic Writing Section.Bayliss, A., & Ingram, D. E. (2006). IELTS as a Predictor of AcademicLanguage Performance. Australian International Education Conference.Retrieved September, 12, 2016, from aper)%20Wed%201630%20MR5.pdfCho, Y., & Bridgeman, B. (2012). Relationship of TOEFL iBT scores toacademic performance: some evidence from American Universities. InLanguage Testing, 29, 3, pp. 421-442Council of Europe (2001). The Common European Framework of Referencefor Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity PressCouncil of Europe (2009). Relating language examinations to the CommonEuropean Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,assessment (CEFR). A manual. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.Retrieved September, 15, 2016, from Revision-proofread-FINAL en.pdfDe Jong, J.H.A.L. (2009a). Unwarranted claims about CEF alignment ofsome international English language tests. Paper presented at EALTAConference, June 2009. Retrieved May, 25, 2015, from y/John deJong.pdfDe Jong, J.H.A.L. (2009b). Dimensionality and the Construct of LanguageProficiency. Paper presented at Language Testing Forum, November 2009De Jong, J.H.A.L., & Zheng, Y. (2016). Linking to the CEFR: validation usinga priori and a posteriori evidence. In: Banerjee, J., & Tsagari, D. (Eds),Contemporary Second Language Assessment. London: BloomsburyAcademic, pp. 83-100Elder, C. (1993). Language proficiency as a predictor of performance inteacher education, In Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 2, pp. 68-85ETS (2015). Linking TOEFL iBT Scores to IELTS Scores – A Research Report.Retrieved September, 25, 2016, from http://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/linking toefl ibt scores to ielts scores.pdfGraham, J.G. (1987). English Language Proficiency and the Prediction ofAcademic Success. In TESOL QUARTERLY, 21, 3, pp. 505–521IELTS (n.d.). Common European Framework. How should the CEFR be usedby recognising institutions wishing to set language ability requirements?Retrieved November, 2, 2016, from n-european-frameworkLiao, C. W, Qu, Y, & Morgan, R. (2010). The Relationships of Test ScoresMeasured by the TOEIC Listening and Reading Test and TOEIC Speaking andWriting Tests. TOEIC Compendium Report TC-10-13. Princeton, NJ: ETS.Retrieved September, 25, 2016, from https://www.ets.org/toeic/researchNorth, B. (2000). The Development of a Common Framework Scale of LanguageProficiency. Berlin, New York: Peter LangPearson (2010). Aligning PTE Academic test scores to the Common EuropeanFramework of Reference for Languages. Retrieved October, 28, 2016, 07/Aligning PTEAScores CEF.pdfReckase, M., & Xu, J. (2015). The evidence for a Subscore Structure in a Testof English Language Competency for English Language Learners. InEducational and Psychological Measurement, 75, 5, pp. 805-825
015 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017Spolsky, B. (1997). The ethics of gatekeeping tests: what have we learned ina hundred years? In Language Testing, 14, 3, pp. 242-247Tannenbaum, R., J., & Wylie, E. C. (2008). Linking English-Language Test Scoresonto the Common European Framework of Reference: An Application ofStandard-Setting Methodology. Princeton, NJ: ETS. Retrieved September,25, 2016, from Taylor, L. (2004). IELTS, Cambridge ESOL examinations and the CommonEuropean Framework. Research Notes, Issue 18, November, pp. 2-3.Retrieved December, 13, 2016, from -notes-18.pdfWoodrow, L. (2006). Academic Success of International PostgraduateEducation Students and the Role of English Proficiency. In University ofSydney Papers in TESOL, 1, pp. 51-70Zhang, Y. (2008). Repeater Analyses for TOEFL iBT RM-08-05. RetrievedOctober, 28, 2016 from Zheng, Y., & De Jong, J.H.A.L. (2011). Establishing construct and concurrentvalidity of Pearson Test of English Academic (1-47). Retrieved October, 25,2016, from ademic 2011.pdf
016 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017GlossaryTermDefinitionCEFRCommon European Framework of Reference for Languagesconcordance tableA table showing how scores on one test relate to scores on another test.correlationA statistic showing the interdependence between two variables.field testingA method used to gather data from a group of people who represent thetarget test-taking population in order to calibrate a test.GSE Learning ObjectiveA description of what a student can do at a particular point on the GlobalScale of English.IRTItem Response Theory: A method used to apply a mathematical model totest data. It predicts the probability of an item being correctly answeredbased on the mathematical function of the ability of the person and thedifficulty of the item.logit scaleA standardised scale of logarithmic units.regression functionA mathematical function expressing the relation between a dependantvariable (y-axis) and an independent variable (x-axis).reliabilityThe consistency of the measures of a test.standard deviation (SD)A statistic showing the amount of variation in a data-set. An SD close to 0means the data point is close to the mean.transformation functionA mathematical function enabling the transformation of values on one scaleto corresponding values on another scale.unidimensionalityA property of a test characterized by item homogeneity.
017 Alignment of the Global Scale of English to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL, March 2017AppendixAlignment of scores of some major English Proficiency Teststo the CEFRCEFRGSEPTEAcademicTOEFLiBT (1)TOEFLPBTIELTS (2)C285-9085-90no scoreno 85.5-6.5A230-4230-42no infono info4.5-5.5A122-2922-29no infono infono info A1 Tourist13-2113-21no infono infono info Tourist10-121
reporting scale for the Pearson Test of English Academic (Pearson, 2010) and validated by aligning it to other international proficiency scales such as IELTS and TOEFL (De Jong, 2009a; Pearson, 2010; Zheng & De Jong, 2011; De Jong & Zheng, 2016). This paper provides a summary of the evidence of the link between PTE Academic and two
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
