Alderson, J. C. (1986a). Computers in language testing. In Leech, G. N. & Candlin, C. N. (Eds.), Computers in English language education and research (pp. 99–111). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1986b). Innovations in language testing? In Portal, M. (Ed.), Innovations in language testing (pp. 93–105). Windsor: NFER/Nelson.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1988). Testing English for Specific Purposes: how specific can we get? ELT Documents, 127, 16–28.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1991). Language testing in the 1990s: How far have we got? How much further have we to go? In Anivan, S. (Ed.), Current developments in language testing (Vol. 25, pp. 1–26). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1996). Do corpora have a role in language assessment? In Thomas, J. & Short, M. (Eds.), Using corpora for language research (pp. 248–59). Harlow:Longman.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1997). Ethics and language testing. Paper presented at the annual TESOL Convention, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1998). Testing and teaching: the dream and the reality. novELTy, 5(4), 23–37.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (1999). What does PESTI have to do with us testers? Paper presented at the International Language Education Conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2000a). Levels of performance. In Alderson, J. C., Nagy, E., & Oveges, E. (Eds.), English language education in Hungary, Part II: Examining Hungarian learners’ achievements in English. Budapest: The British Council.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2000b). Exploding myths: Does the number of hours per week matter? novELTy, 7(1), 17–32.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2000c). Technology in testing: the present and the future. System 28(4) 593–603.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2000d). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2001a). Testing is too important to be left to the tester. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Language Testing Symposium, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2001b). The lift is being fixed. You will be unbearable today (Or why we hope that there will not be translation on the new English érettsegi). Paper presented at the Magyar Macmillan Conference, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. & Buck, G. (1993). Standards in testing: a study of the practice of UK examination boards in EFL/ESL testing. Language Testing, 30(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: a study of washback. Language Testing, 33(3), 280–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alderson, J. C., Nagy, E. & Oveges, E. (Eds.) (2000a). English language education in Hungary, Part II: Examining Hungarian learners' achievements in English. Budapest: The British Council.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C., Percsich, R. & Szabo, G. (2000b). Sequencing as an item type. Language Testing, 17 (4), 423–47.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alte, (1998). ALTE handbook of European examinations and examination systems. Cambridge: UCLES.Google Scholar

Australian Education Council (1994). ESL Scales. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6(1), 14–29.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bailey, K. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the wash-back concept in language testing. Language Testing, 33(3), 257–79.Google Scholar

Baker, C. (1988). Normative testing and bilingual populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9(5), 399–409.Google Scholar

Banerjee, J., Clapham, C., Clapham, P. & Wall, D. (Eds.) (1999). ILTA language testing bibliography 1990–1999, First edition. Lancaster, UK: Language Testing Update.Google Scholar

BARBOT, M.-J. (1991). New approaches to evaluation in self-access learning (trans, from French). Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée, 79, 77–94.Google Scholar

Barnes, A., Hunt, M. & Powell, B. (1999). Dictionary use in the teaching and examining of MFLs at GCSE. Language Learning journal, 19, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, A. & Pomfrett, G. (1998). Assessment in German at KS3: how can it be consistent, fair and appropriate? Deutsch: Lehren und Lernen, 17, 2–6.Google Scholar

Barrs, M., Ellis, S., Hester, H. & Thomas, A. (1988). The Primary Language Record: A handbook for teachers. London: Centre for Language in Primary Education.Google Scholar

Bennett, R. E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: speculations on the future of large-scale educational testing. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Bhgel, K. & Leijn, M. (1999). New exams in secondary education, new question types. An investigation into the reliability of the evaluation of open-ended questions in foreign-language exams. Levende Talen, 537, 173–81.Google Scholar

Blanche, P. (1990). Using standardised achievement and oral proficiency tests for self-assessment purposes: the DLIFLC study. Language Testing, 7(2), 202–29.Google Scholar

Blanche, P. & Merino, B. J. (1989). Self-assessment of foreign language skills: implications for teachers and researchers. Language Learning, 39(3), 313–40.Google Scholar

Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. & Taeschner, T. (1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-school education: context and outcomes. A review of recent research within the European Union. London: GILT.Google Scholar

Blue, G. M. (1988). Self assessment: the limits of learner independence. ELT Documents, 131, 100–18.Google Scholar

BOLOGNA DECLARATION (1999) Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/erasmus/bologna.pdfGoogle Scholar

Boyle, J., Gillham, B. & Smith, N. (1996). Screening for early language delay in the 18–36 month age-range: the predictive validity of tests of production and implications for practice. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 12(2), 113–27.Google Scholar

Breen, M. P., Barratt-Pugh, C., Derewianka, B., House, H., Hudson, C., Lumley, T., & Rohl, M. (Eds.) (1997). Profiling ESL children: how teachers interpret and use national and state assessment frameworks (Vol. 1). Commonwealth of Australia: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar

Brindley, G. (1995). Assessment and reporting in language learning programs: Purposes, problems and pitfalls. Plenary presentation at the International Conference on Testing and Evaluation in Second Language Education, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 21–24 June 1995.Google Scholar

Brindley, A. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning programmes: a review of the issues. Language Testing, 35(1), 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: some examples and emerging insights. Language Testing, 18(4), 393–407.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 32(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Brown, A. & Iwashita, N. (1996). Language background and item difficulty: the development of a computer-adaptive test of japanese. System, 24(2), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, A. & Lumley, T. (1997). Interviewer variability in specific-purpose language performance tests. In Huhta, A., Kohonen, V., Kurki-Suonio, L. & Luoma, S. (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment (137–50). Jyväskylä’: Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar

Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: present research and some future directions. Language Learning and Technology, 3(1), 44–59.Google Scholar

Brown, J. D. & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653–75.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (1991). Continuous assessment in Spanish state schools. Language Testing Update, 10, 14–20.Google Scholar

Buckby, M. (1999). The'use of the target language at GCSE. Language Learning Journal, 19, 4–11.Google Scholar

Burstein, J., Frase, L. T., Ginther, A. & Grant, L. (1996). Technologies for language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 240–60.Google Scholar

Carpenter, K., Fujii, N. & Kataoka, H. (1995). An oral interview procedure for assessing second language abilities in children. Language Testing, 12(2), 157–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, B. J. & West, R. (1989). ESU Framework: Performance scales for English language examinations. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Carton, F. (1993). Self-evaluation at the heart of learning. Le Français dans le Monde (special number), 28–35.Google Scholar

Celestine, C. & Cheah, S. M. (1999). The effect of background disciplines on IELTS scores. In Tulloh, R. (Ed.), IELTS Research Reports 1999 (Vol. 2, 36–51). Canberra: IELTS Australia Pty Limited.Google Scholar

Chalhoub-Deville, M. & Deville, C. (1999). Computer-adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273–99.Google Scholar

Chambers, F. & Richards, B. (1992). Criteria for oral assessment. Language Learning Journal, 6, 5–9.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254–72.Google Scholar

Charge, N. & Taylor, L. B. (1997). Recent developments in IELTS. ELT Journal, 51(4), 374–80.Google Scholar

Chen, Z. & Henning, G. (1985). Linguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests. Language Testing, 2(2), 155–63.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education 11(1), 38–54.Google Scholar

Clapham, C. (1996). Tlie development of IELTS: a study of the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension (Studies in Language Testing Series, Vol. 4). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clapham, C. (2000a). Assessment for academic purposes: where next? System, 28, 511–21.Google Scholar

Clapham, C. (2000b). Assessment and testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 147–61.Google Scholar

Coniam, D. (1994). Designing an ability scale for English across the range of secondary school forms. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 17, 55–61.Google Scholar

Coniam, D. (1995). Towards a common ability scale for Hong Kong English secondary-school forms. Language Testing, 12(2), 182–93.Google Scholar

Coniam, D. (1997). A computerised English language proofing cloze program. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 10(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coniam, D. (1998). From text to test, automatically – an evaluation of a computer cloze-test generator. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 41–60.Google Scholar

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2001). A Common European Framework of reference for learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Csépes, I., Sulyok, A. & Oveges, E. (2000). The pilot speaking examinations. In Alderson, J. C., Nagy, E. & Öveges, E. (Eds.), English language education in Hungary, Part II: Examining Hungarian learners'achievements in English. Budapest: The British Council.Google Scholar

Gumming, A. (1994). Does language assessment facilitate recent immigrants’ participation in Canadian society? TESL Canada Journal, 11 (2), 117–33.Google Scholar

Gumming, A. (1995). Changing definitions of language proficiency: functions of language assessment in educational programmes for recent immigrant learners of English in Canada. Journal of the CAAL, 17(1), 35–48.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (1984a). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (1984b). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In Rivera, C. (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (Vol. 10). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Davidson, F. (1994). Norms appropriacy of achievement tests: Spanish-speaking children and English children's norms. Language Testing, 11(1), 83–95.Google Scholar

Davies, A. (1978). Language testing: survey articles 1 and 2. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 11, 145–59 and 215–31.Google Scholar

Davies, A. (1997). Demands of being professional in language testing. Language Testing, 14(3), 328–39.Google Scholar

Davies, A. (2001). The logic of testing Languages for Specific Purposes. Language Testing, 18(2), 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Jong, J. H. A. L. (1992). Assessment of language proficiency in the perspective of the 21st century. AILA Review, 9, 39–45.Google Scholar

Dollerup, C., Glahn, E. & Rosenberg Hansen, C. (1994). ‘Sprogtest’: a smart test (or how to develop a reliable and anonymous EFL reading test). Language Testing, 11(1), 65–81.Google Scholar

Douglas, D. (1995). Developments in language testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douglas, D. (1997). Language for specific purposes testing. In Clapham, C. & Corson, D. (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (Vol. 7, 111–19). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Douglas, D. (2001a). Three problems in testing language for specific purposes: authenticity, specificity and inseparability. In Elder, C., Brown, A., Grove, E., Hill, K., Iwashita, N., Lumley, T., McNamara, T. F. & O'loughlin, K. (Eds.), Experimenting with uncertainty: essays in honour of Alan Davies (Studies in Language Testing Series, Vol. 11, 45–51). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Douglas, D. (2001b). Language for Specific Purposes assessment criteria: where do they come from? Language Testing, 18(2), 171–85.Google Scholar

Douglas, D. & Selinker, L. (1992). Analysing oral proficiency test performance in general and specific-purpose contexts. System, 20(3), 317–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunkel, P. (1999). Considerations in developing or using second/foreign language proficiency computer-adaptive tests. Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 77–93.Google Scholar

Edelenbos, P. & Johnstone, R. (Eds.). (1996). Researching languages at primary school: some European perspectives. London: GILT, in collaboration with Scottish GILT and GION.Google Scholar

Edelenbos, P. & Vinje, M. P. (2000). The assessment of a foreign language at the end of primary (elementary) education. Language Testing, 17(2), 144–62.Google Scholar

Elder, C. (1997). What does test bias have to do with fairness? Language Testing, 14(3), 261–77.Google Scholar

Elder, C. (2001). Assessing the language proficiency of teachers: are there any border controls? Language Testing, 18(2), 149–70.Google Scholar

Fekete, H., Major, E. & Nikolov, M. (Eds.) (1999). English language education in Hungary: A baseline study. Budapest: The British Council.Google Scholar

Fox, J., Pychyl, T. & Zumbo, B. (1997). An investigation of background knowledge in the assessment of language proficiency. In Huhta, A., Kohonen, V., Kurki-Suonio, L. & Luoma, S. (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment (367–83). Jyväskylä: University of jyväskylä.Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. (1999a). Assessment in English for Academic Purposes: putting content validity in its place. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 221–36.Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. (1999b). Computerising an English language placement test. ELT Journal, 53(4), 289–99.Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. & Bamford, R. (1996). I didn't get the grade I need. Where's my solicitor? System, 24(4), 437–48.Google Scholar

Gattullo, F. (2000). Formative assessment in ELT primary (elementary) classrooms: an Italian case study. Language Testing, 77(2), 278–88.Google Scholar

Genesee, F. & Hamayan, E.V. (1994). Classroom-based assessment. In Genesee, F. (Ed.), Educating second language children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gervais, C. (1997). Computers and language testing: a harmonious relationship? Francophonie, 16, 3–7.Google Scholar

Gimenez, J. C. (1996). Process assessment in ESP: input, throughput and output. English for Specific Purposes, 15(3), 233–41.Google Scholar

Ginther, A. (forthcoming). Context and content visuals and performance on listening comprehension stimuli. Language Testing.Google Scholar

Groot, P. J. M. (1990). Language testing in research and education: the need for standards. AILA Review, 7, 9–23.Google Scholar

Guillon, M. (1997). L'évaluation ministerielle en classe de seconde en anglais. Les Langues Modernes, 2, 32–39.Google Scholar

Haggstrom, M. (1994). Using a videocamera and task-based activities to make classroom oral testing a more realistic communicative experience. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hahn, S., Stassen, T. & Deschke, C. (1989). Grading classroom oral activities: effects on motivation and proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22(3), 241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halleck, G. B. & Moder, C. L. (1995). Testing language and teaching skills of international teaching assistants: the limits of compensatory strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(4), 733–57.Google Scholar

Hamayan, E. (1995). Approaches to alternative assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 212–26.Google Scholar

Hamilton, J., Lopes, M., McNamara, T. & Sheridan, E. (1993). Rating scales and native speaker performance on a communicatively oriented EAP test. Language Testing, 10(3), 337–53.Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). Applying ethical standards to portfolio assessment of writing in English as a second language. In Milanovic, M. & Saville, N. (Eds.), Performance testing, cognition and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium (Studies in Language Testing Series, Vol. 3, 151–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Washback, impact and validity: ethical concerns. Language Testing, 14(3), 295–303.Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1998). Ethics in language testing. In Clapham, C. M. & Corson, D. (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (Vol. 7). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (1993). Questioning assumptions about portfolio-based assessment. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 176–90.Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (1999). Assessing college writing portfolios: principles for practice, theory, research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

Hargan, N. (1994). Learner autonomy by remote control. System, 22(4), 455–62.Google Scholar

Hasselgren, A. (1998). Small words and good testing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bergen, Bergen.Google Scholar

Hasselgren, A. (2000). The assessment of the English ability of young learners in Norwegian schools: an innovative approach. Language Testing, 17(2), 261–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawthorne, L. (1997). The political dimension of language testing in Australia. Language Testing, 14(3), 248–60.Google Scholar

Heilenman, L. K. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: the role of response effects. Language Testing, 7(2), 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henrichsen, L. E. (1989). Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC effort in Japan, 1956–1968. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Holm, A., Dodd, B., Stow, C. & Pert, S. (1999). Identification and differential diagnosis of phonological disorder in bilingual children. Language Testing, 16(3), 271–92.Google Scholar

Howard, S., Hartley, J. & Mueller, D. (1995). The changing face of child language assessment: 1985–1995. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 11(1), 7–22.Google Scholar

Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished manuscript, University of Reading.Google Scholar

Hughes Wilhelm, K. (1996). Combined assessment model for EAP writing workshop: portfolio decision-making, criterion-referenced grading and contract negotiation. TESL Canada Journal, 14(1), 21–33.Google Scholar

Hurman, J. (1990). Deficiency and development. Francophonie, 1, 8–12.Google Scholar

Ilta - International Language Testing Association (1997). Code of practice for foreign/second language testing. Lancaster: ILTA. [Draft, March, 1997].Google Scholar

Ilta - International Language Testing Association. Code of Ethics. [http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/ltrfile/ltrframe.html]Google Scholar

Jamieson, J., Taylor, C., Kirsch, I. & Eignor, D. (1998). Design and evaluation of a computer-based TOEFL tutorial. System, 26(4), 485–513.Google Scholar

Jansen, H. & Peer, C. (1999). Using dictionaries with national foreign-language examinations for reading comprehension. Levende Talen, 544, 639–41.Google Scholar

Jennings, M., Fox, J., Graves, B. & Shohamy, E. (1999). The test-takers’ choice: an investigation of the effect of topic on language-test performance. Language Testing, 16(4), 426–56.Google Scholar

Jensen, C. & Hansen, C. (1995) The effect of prior knowledge on EAP listening-test performance, Language Testing, 12(1), 99–119.Google Scholar

Johnstone, R. (2000). Context-sensitive assessment of modern languages in primary (elementary) and early secondary education: Scotland and the European experience. Language Testing, 17(2), 123–43.Google Scholar

Kalter, A. O. & Vossen, P. W. J. E. (1990). EUROCERT: an international standard for certification of language proficiency. AILA Review, 7, 91–106.Google Scholar

Khaniyah, T. R. (1990a). Examinations as instruments for educational change: Investigating the washback effect of the Nepalese English exams. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Khaniyah, T. R. (1990b). The washback effect of a textbook-based test. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 1, 48–58.Google Scholar

Kieweg, W. (1992). Leistungsmessung im Fach Englisch: Praktische Vorschläge zur Konzeption von Lernzielkontrollen. Fremdsprachenunterricht, 45(6), 321–32.Google Scholar

Kieweg, W. (1999). Allgemeine Gütekriterien fur Lernzielkontrollen (Common standards for the control of learning). Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch, 37(1), 4–11.Google Scholar

Laurier, M. (1998). Methodologie d'évaluation dans des contextes d'apprentissage des langages assistes par des environnements informatiques multimédias. Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 110, 247–55.Google Scholar

Law, B. & Eckes, M. (1995). Assessment and ESL. Winnipeg, Canada: Peguis.Google Scholar

Lee, B. (1989). Classroom-based assessment - why and how? British Journal of Language Teaching, 27(2), 73–6.Google Scholar

Leung, C. & Teasdale, A. (1996). English as an additional language within the National Curriculum: A study of assessment practices. Prospect, 12(2), 58–68.Google Scholar

Leung, C. & Teasdale, A. (1997). What do teachers mean by speaking and listening: a contextualised study of assessment in the English National Curriculum. In Huhta, A., Kohonen, V., Kurki-Suonio, L. & Luoma, S. (Eds.), New contexts, goals and alternatives in language assessment (291–324). Jyväskylä: University of jyväskylä.Google Scholar

Lewkowicz, J. A. (1997). Investigating authenticity in language testing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancaster.Google Scholar

Lewkowicz, J. A. (2000). Authenticity in language testing: some outstanding questions. Language Testing, 17(1), 43–64.Google Scholar

Lewkowicz, J. A., & Moon, J. (1985). Evaluation, a way of involving the learner. In Alderson, J. C. (Ed.), Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education (Vol. 6: Evaluation), 45–80. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Li, K. C. (1997). The labyrinth of exit standard controls. Hong Kong jonrnal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 23–38.Google Scholar

Liddicoat, A. (1996). The Language Profile: oral interaction. Babel, 31(2), 4–7,25.Google Scholar

Liddicoat, A. J. (1998). Trialling the languages profile in the A.C.T. Babel, 33(2), 14–38.Google Scholar

Low, L., Duffield, J., Brown, S. & Johnstone, R. (1993). Evaluating foreign languages in Scottish primary schools: report to Scottish Office. Stirling: University of Stirling: Scottish CILT.Google Scholar

Lumley, T. (1998). Perceptions of language-trained raters and occupational experts in a test of occupational English language proficiency. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 347–67.Google Scholar

Lumley, T. & Brown, A. (1998). Authenticity of discourse in a specific purpose test. In Li, E. & James, G. (Eds.), Testing and evaluation in second language education (22–33). Hong Kong: The Language Centre, The University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar

Lumley, T. & McNamara, T. F. (1995). Rater characteristics and rater bias: implications for training. Language Testing, 72(1), 54–71.Google Scholar

Lumley, T., Raso, E. & Mincham, L. (1993). Exemplar assessment activities. In Nllia, (Ed.), NLLIA ESL Development: Language and Literacy in Schools. Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.Google Scholar

Lynch, B. (1997). In search of the ethical test. Language Testing, 14(3), 315–27.Google Scholar

Lynch, B. & Davidson, F. (1994). Criterion-referenced test development: linking curricula, teachers and tests. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 727–43.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (1988). Peer evaluation in practice. ELT Documents, 131, 119–25.Google Scholar

Manley, J. H. (1995). Assessing students’ oral language: one school district's response. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 93–102.Google Scholar

McKay, P. (2000). On ESL standards for school-age learners. Language Testing, 17(2), 185–214.Google Scholar

McKay, P., Hudson, C. & Sapuppo, M. (1994). ESL bandscales, NLLIA ESL development: language and literacy in schools project. Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.Google Scholar

McKay, P. & Scaring, A. (1991). The ESL Framework of Stages. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar

McNamara, T. (1998). Policy and social considerations in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 304–19.Google Scholar

McNamara, T. F. (1995). Modelling performance: opening Pandora's box. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 159–75.Google Scholar

McNamara, T. F. & Lumley, T. (1997). The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings. Language Testing, 14(2), 140–56.Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–56.Google Scholar

Milanovic, M. (1995). Comparing language qualifications in different languages: a framework and code of practice. System, 23(4), 467–79.Google Scholar

Moeller, A.J. & Reschke, C. (1993). A second look at grading and classroom performance: report of a research study. Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 163–9.Google Scholar

Moore, T. & Morton, J. (1999). Authenticity in the IELTS academic module writing test: a comparative study of task 2 items and university assignments. In Tulloh, R. (Ed.), IELTS Research Reports 1999 (Vol. 2, 64–106). Canberra: IELTS Australia Pty Limited.Google Scholar

Mundzeck, F. (1993). Die Problematik objektiver Leistungsmessung in einem kommunikativen Fremdsprachenunterricht: am Beispiel des Französischen. Fremdsprachenunterricht, 46(8), 449–54.Google Scholar

Nllia (National Languages And Literacy Institute Of Australia) (1993). NLLIA ESL Development: Language and Literacy in Schools, Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.Google Scholar

Neil, D. (1989). Foreign languages in the National Curriculum - what to teach and how to test? A proposal for the Languages Task Group. Modern Languages, 70(1), 5–9.Google Scholar

North, B. & Schneider, G. (1998) Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing, 15 (2), 217–62.Google Scholar

Norton, B. & Starfield, S. (1997). Covert language assessment in academic writing. Language Testing, 14(3), 278–94.Google Scholar

Oscarson, M. (1984). Self-assessment of foreign language skills: a survey of research and development work. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation.Google Scholar

Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6(1), 1–13.Google Scholar

Oscarson, M. (1997). Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In Clapham, C. & Corson, D. (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (Vol. 7, 175–87). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Padilla, A. M., Aninao, J. C. & Sung, H. (1996). Development and implementation of student portfolios in foreign language programs. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 429–38.Google Scholar

Page, B. (1993). The target language and examinations. Language Learning Journal, 8, 6–7.Google Scholar

Papajohn, D. (1999). The effect of topic variation in performance testing: the case of the chemistry TEACH test for international teaching assistants. Language Testing, 16(1), 52–81.Google Scholar

Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers for change. In Chamberlain, D. & Baumgardner, R. (Eds.), ESP in the classroom: Practice and evaluation (Vol. 128, 98–107). London: Modern English Publications.Google Scholar

Peirce, B. N. & Stewart, G. (1997). The development of the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment. TESL Canada Journal, 14(2), 17–31.Google Scholar

Plakans, B. & Abraham, R. G. (1990). The testing and evaluation of international teaching assistants. In Douglas, D. (Ed.), English language testing in U.S. colleges and universities (68–81). Washington DC: NAFSA.Google Scholar

Pugsley, J. (1988). Autonomy and individualisation in language learning: institutional implications. ELT Documents, 131, 54–61.Google Scholar

Rea-Dickins, P. (1987). Testing doctors’ written communicative competence: an experimental technique in English for specialist purposes. Quantitative Linguistics, 34, 185–218.Google Scholar

Rea-Dlcklns, P. (1997). So why do we need relationships with stakeholders in language testing? A view from the UK. Language Testing, 14(3), 304–14.Google Scholar

Rea-Dickins, P. & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares or silver bullets: disentangling the construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17(2), 215–43.Google Scholar

Read, J. (1990) Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test, English for Specific Purposes 1, 243–68.Google Scholar

Reed, D. J. & Halleck, G. B. (1997). Probing above the ceiling in oral interviews: what's up there? In Huhta, A., Kohonen, V., Kurki-Suonio, L. & Luoma, S. (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyväskylä'.Google Scholar

Richards, B. & Chambers, F. (1996). Reliability and validity in the GCSE oral examination. Language Learning Journal, 14, 28–34.Google Scholar

Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: a meta-analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Rossiter, M. & Pawlikowsska-Smith, G. (1999). The use of CLBA scores in LING program placement practices in Western Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 39–52.Google Scholar

Roy, M.-J. (1988). Writing in the GCSE - modern languages. British Journal of Language Teaching, 26(2), 99–102.Google Scholar

Sciarone, A. G. (1995). A fully automatic homework checking system. IRAL, 33(1), 35–6.Google Scholar

Scott, M. L., Stansfield, C. W. & Kenyon, D. M. (1996). Examining validity in a performance test: the listening sum-mary translation exam (LSTE). Language Testing, 13, 83–109.Google Scholar

Shameem, N. (1998). Validating self-reported language proficiency by testing performance in an immigrant community: the Wellington Indo-Fijans. Language Testing, 15(1), 86–108.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (1993). The power of tests: The impact of language tests on teaching and learning NFLC Occasional Papers. Washington, D.C.: The National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (1997a). Testing methods, testing consequences: are they ethical? Language Testing, 14(3), 340–9.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (1997b). Critical language testing and beyond, plenary paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Orlando, Florida. 8–11 March.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (2001b). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–92.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S. & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: washback effect over time. Language Testing, 13(3), 298–317.Google Scholar

Short, D. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 627–56.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1988). State of the art: language testing, part I. Language Teaching, 211–21.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1989). State of the art: language testing, part II. Language Teaching, 1–13.Google Scholar

Spolsky, B. (1997). The ethics of gatekeeping tests: what have we learned in a hundred years? Language Testing, 14(3), 242–7.Google Scholar

Stansfield, C.W. (1981). The assessment of language proficiency in bilingual children: An analysis of theories and instrumentation. In Padilla, R.V. (Ed.), Bilingual education and technology.Google Scholar

Stansfield, C. W., Scott, M. L. & Kenyon, D. M. (1990). Listening summary translation exam (LSTE) – Spanish (Final Project Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 323 786). Washington DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Stansfield, C. W., Wu, W. M. & Liu, C. C. (1997). Listening Summary Translation Exam (LSTE) in Taiwanese, akak Minnan (Final Project Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 413 788). N. Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing, Inc.Google Scholar

Stansfield, C. W., Wu, W. M. & Van Der Heide, M. (2000). A job-relevant listening summary translation exam in Minnan. In Kunnan, A. J. (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (Studies in Language Testing Series, Vol. 9, 177–200). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tarone, E. (2001). Assessing language skills for specific purposes: describing and analysing the ‘behaviour domain’. In Elder, C., Brown, A., Grove, E., Hill, K., Iwashita, N.. Lumley, T., McNamara, T. F. & O'loughlin, K. (Eds.), Experimenting with uncertainty: essays in honour of Alan Davies (Studies in Language Testing Series, Vol. 11, 53–60). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D. & Jamieson, J. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Learning, 49(2), 219–74.Google Scholar

Teasdale, A. & Leung, C. (2000). Teacher assessment and psychometric theory: a case of paradigm crossing? Language Testing, 17(2), 163–84.Google Scholar

Tesol, (1998). Managing the assessment process: A framework for measuring student attainment of the ESL standards. Alexandria, VA:TESOL.Google Scholar

Trueba, H. T. (1989). Raising silent voices: educating the linguistic minorities for the twenty-first century. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Van Ek, J.A. (1997). The Threshold Level for modern language learning in schools. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Van Elmpt, M. & Loonen, P. (1998). Openquestions: answers in the foreign language? Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 58, 149–54.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L. & Belanger, C. (1998). The National Core French Assessment Project: design and field test of formative evaluation instruments at the intermediate level. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(4), 553–78.Google Scholar

Wall, D. (1996). Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory. Language Testing, 13(3), 334–54.Google Scholar

Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: can this be predicted or controlled? System, 28, 499–509.Google Scholar

Wall, D. & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study. Language Testing, 70(1), 41–69.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does Grammar-Translation come from the Entrance Examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13(3), 319–33.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Y. (2001). Does the university entrance examination motivate learners? A case study of learner interviews. Akita Association of English Studies (ed.). Trans-equator exchanges: A collection of acadmic papers in honour of Professor David Ingram, 100–10.Google Scholar

Weir, C. J. & Roberts, J. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Welling-Slootmaekers, M. (1999). Language examinations in Dutch secondary schools from 2000 onwards. Levende Talen, 542,488–90.Google Scholar

Wilson, J. (2001). Assessing young learners: what makes a good test? Paper presented at the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) Conference, Barcelona, 5–7 July 2001.Google Scholar

Windsor, J. (1999). Effect of semantic inconsistency on sentence grammaticality judgements for children with and without language-learning disabilities. Language Testing, 16(3), 293–313.Google Scholar

Wu, W. M. & Stansfield, C.W. (2001). Towards authenticity of task in test development. Language Testing, 18(2), 187–206.Google Scholar

Young, R., Shermis, M. D., Brutten, S. R. & Perkins, K. (1996). From conventional to computer-adaptive testing of ESL reading comprehension. System, 24(1), 23–40.Google Scholar

Yule, G. (1990). Predicting success for international teaching assistants in a US university. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 227–43.Google Scholar

Zangl, R. (2000). Monitoring language skills in Austrian primary (elementary) schools: a case study. Language Testing, 17(2), 250–60.Google Scholar