Investigating How Test-Takers Change Their Strategies to Handle Difficulty in Taking a Reading Comprehension Test: Implications for Score Validation

This article investigates how test-takers change their strategies to handle increased test difficulty. An adult sample reported their test-taking strategies immediately after completing the tasks in a reading test. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling specifying a measurement-invari...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of testing 2018-07, Vol.18 (3), p.253-275
Main Authors: Wu, Amery D., Chen, Michelle Y., Stone, Jake E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adults
Difficulty Level
Educational tests & measurements
English Language Learners
Foreign Countries
Immigrants
Latent class analysis
latent transition analysis
Meaning
Measurement
process-based validation
Reading Comprehension
Reading Tests
response processes
Responses
Scores
Test Validity
Test Wiseness
test-management
test-taking strategy
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article investigates how test-takers change their strategies to handle increased test difficulty. An adult sample reported their test-taking strategies immediately after completing the tasks in a reading test. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling specifying a measurement-invariant, ability-moderated, latent transition analysis in Mplus (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2011). It was found that almost half of the test-takers (47%) changed their strategies when encountering increased task-difficulty. The changes were characterized by augmenting comprehending-meaning strategies with score-maximizing and test-wiseness strategies. Moreover, test-takers' ability was the driving influence that facilitated and/or buffered the changes. The test outcomes, when reviewed in light of adjusted test-taking strategies, demonstrated a form of process-based validity evidence.
ISSN:1530-5058
1532-7574
DOI:10.1080/15305058.2017.1396464