The Technical Communication Editing Test: Three Studies on This Assessment Type

• Published in: Technical communication (Washington) 2014-11, Vol.61 (4), p.1
• Main Author: Boettger, Ryan K
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Capitalization; Coding; Communication; Context; Correlation analysis; Editing; Homonyms; Orthography; Perceptions; Personnel Selection; Schemas; Spelling; Technical communication; Technical Writing; Vocabularies & taxonomies; Writing tests
• ISSN: 0049-3155; 1938-369X

In this paper, I present the results of three studies on editing tests used to screen prospective technical communicators and the error types common to these tests. Because few publically available, authentic examples exist, I first explore the general characteristics of 55 tests and 71 error types. Error types are correlated against 176 professionals' perceptions of these error types. The sample's characteristics were first identified from the tests and the hiring managers. Three raters then independently classified the errors types using coding schemas from previous taxonomies of college-level writing. Finally, a 24-question survey was administered to capture professional communicators' perceptions of error. Editing tests were typically designed in narrative format and evaluated holistically, but variation in administration and format existed. The sample included 3,568 errors and 71 error types. Errors related to wrong words, spelling, and capitalization dominated, but 13 other errors were frequently found as well as dispersed within at least 50% of the sample. Conversely, professionals were bothered most by apostrophe errors, homonyms, and sentence fragments. No significant correlations were found among the frequencies and dispersions of the editing tests' errors and the professionals' perceptions of those errors. Editing tests share common characteristics, but organizational context substantially influences its format and contents. There were consistencies between the editing test error types and types identified in college-writing taxonomies; however, context again influences why errors are introduced as well as the types of errors that were identified. Finally, hiring managers and professionals share different perceptions of error. Understanding these differences can produce better assessment tools and better prepare test takers.