{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/79840"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/79840","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Construct Validation of an Integrated, Process-Oriented, and Computerized English for Academic Purposes (Eap) Placement Test: A Mixed Method Approach","abstract":"A validity table is presented to summarize the positive and negative attributes of six research questions investigated in this study: predictive validity, convergent and discriminant validity, improved essay quality, consequential validity, test fairness, and authenticity. Arguments in favor of the CEEPT came from six types of validity evidence. First, the qualitative data complemented the results of a correlation coefficient between CEEPT and first semester GPA. Second, the CEEPT is convergent with the TOEFL listening, the TOEFL essay writing, and the GRE analytical writing sections. The CEEPT measures different abilities than do the quantitative and analytical sections of the GRE, as indicated by insignificant and low correlation coefficients. Third, the CEEPT elicited test takers' writing abilities with the help of peer feedback and computer writing tools, as indicated by scores and text analysis. Fourth, malcontents (i.e., test-takers unhappy with the test's results) reported that they benefited from taking ESL courses and appreciated the benefit, which showed that adverse consequences were minimized. Fifth, an absence of evidence of bias ensures comparable construct and predictive validity for subgroups of language background, gender, and discipline. Sixth, students perceived a close match between the academic tasks and the CEEPT tasks, and they expressed their preference for the CEEPT and the computer delivery of the test.","abstract_html":"A validity table is presented to summarize the positive and negative attributes of six research questions investigated in this study: predictive validity, convergent and discriminant validity, improved essay quality, consequential validity, test fairness, and authenticity. Arguments in favor of the CEEPT came from six types of validity evidence. First, the qualitative data complemented the results of a correlation coefficient between CEEPT and first semester GPA. Second, the CEEPT is convergent with the TOEFL listening, the TOEFL essay writing, and the GRE analytical writing sections. The CEEPT measures different abilities than do the quantitative and analytical sections of the GRE, as indicated by insignificant and low correlation coefficients. Third, the CEEPT elicited test takers' writing abilities with the help of peer feedback and computer writing tools, as indicated by scores and text analysis. Fourth, malcontents (i.e., test-takers unhappy with the test's results) reported that they benefited from taking ESL courses and appreciated the benefit, which showed that adverse consequences were minimized. Fifth, an absence of evidence of bias ensures comparable construct and predictive validity for subgroups of language background, gender, and discipline. Sixth, students perceived a close match between the academic tasks and the CEEPT tasks, and they expressed their preference for the CEEPT and the computer delivery of the test.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Lee, Young-Ju"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Education","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Cziko, Gary A."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-25T19:54:01Z","date_published":"2015-09-25T19:54:01Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:13Z","subjects":["Education, Technology of"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI3182308"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI3182308","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/79840","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Cziko, Gary A."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Lee, Young-Ju"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-25T19:54:01Z","10000-01-01","2005"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Education"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Education, Technology of"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/79840","(MiAaPQ)AAI3182308"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["A validity table is presented to summarize the positive and negative attributes of six research questions investigated in this study: predictive validity, convergent and discriminant validity, improved essay quality, consequential validity, test fairness, and authenticity. Arguments in favor of the CEEPT came from six types of validity evidence. First, the qualitative data complemented the results of a correlation coefficient between CEEPT and first semester GPA. Second, the CEEPT is convergent with the TOEFL listening, the TOEFL essay writing, and the GRE analytical writing sections. The CEEPT measures different abilities than do the quantitative and analytical sections of the GRE, as indicated by insignificant and low correlation coefficients. Third, the CEEPT elicited test takers' writing abilities with the help of peer feedback and computer writing tools, as indicated by scores and text analysis. Fourth, malcontents (i.e., test-takers unhappy with the test's results) reported that they benefited from taking ESL courses and appreciated the benefit, which showed that adverse consequences were minimized. Fifth, an absence of evidence of bias ensures comparable construct and predictive validity for subgroups of language background, gender, and discipline. Sixth, students perceived a close match between the academic tasks and the CEEPT tasks, and they expressed their preference for the CEEPT and the computer delivery of the test.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T19:54:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3182308.pdf: 12105051 bytes, checksum: 8b7dbb2bc28782278ca58181f8f7af0c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 81122 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","300 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2005."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Construct Validation of an Integrated, Process-Oriented, and Computerized English for Academic Purposes (Eap) Placement Test: A Mixed Method Approach"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Cziko, Gary A."],"dc:creator":["Lee, Young-Ju"],"dc:date":["2015-09-25T19:54:01Z","10000-01-01","2005"],"dc:description":["A validity table is presented to summarize the positive and negative attributes of six research questions investigated in this study: predictive validity, convergent and discriminant validity, improved essay quality, consequential validity, test fairness, and authenticity. Arguments in favor of the CEEPT came from six types of validity evidence. First, the qualitative data complemented the results of a correlation coefficient between CEEPT and first semester GPA. Second, the CEEPT is convergent with the TOEFL listening, the TOEFL essay writing, and the GRE analytical writing sections. The CEEPT measures different abilities than do the quantitative and analytical sections of the GRE, as indicated by insignificant and low correlation coefficients. Third, the CEEPT elicited test takers' writing abilities with the help of peer feedback and computer writing tools, as indicated by scores and text analysis. Fourth, malcontents (i.e., test-takers unhappy with the test's results) reported that they benefited from taking ESL courses and appreciated the benefit, which showed that adverse consequences were minimized. Fifth, an absence of evidence of bias ensures comparable construct and predictive validity for subgroups of language background, gender, and discipline. Sixth, students perceived a close match between the academic tasks and the CEEPT tasks, and they expressed their preference for the CEEPT and the computer delivery of the test.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T19:54:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3182308.pdf: 12105051 bytes, checksum: 8b7dbb2bc28782278ca58181f8f7af0c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 81122 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","300 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2005."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/79840","(MiAaPQ)AAI3182308"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Education, Technology of"],"dc:title":["Construct Validation of an Integrated, Process-Oriented, and Computerized English for Academic Purposes (Eap) Placement Test: A Mixed Method Approach"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Education"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:13Z"}