大学英语四级考试仔细阅读（2009-2012）内容效度研究
|
摘要
作为一项大规模标准化考试,大学英语四级考试(CET一4),已经被公认为衡量中国英语学习者英语能力的一个非常有影响力的标尺。四级考试成绩在升学及就业方面起着极其重要的作用。2006年12月,CET-4经历了一次重大变革。英语阅读测试,作为CET-4考试中重要的一部分,也相应的进行了改革。例如：该阅读理解部分的比重由40%降至35%；阅读时间由35分钟降至25分钟；测试题型也由过去单一的仔细阅读调整为仔细阅读与快速阅读相结合；仔细阅读部分除两篇多项选择文章外,新增选词填空或简答题。改革之后,对于CET-4阅读理解的研究主要集中在快速阅读之上,而仔细阅读理解部分在CET-4考试中占了很大的比重,而且精读能力是提高人们理解和沟通能力的基础。因此,有必要对CET-4仔细阅读理解部分的特点进行探究,进而了解该部分的内容效度。
根据Bachman和Palmer的任务特征框架(1996),并参照《大学英语四级考试大纲》(2006年修订版)及《大学英语课程教学要求》(2007年版),本文提出了一个更具操作性的阅读测试内容效度评估框架。该框架包括文本输入及预期回答两个方面。依据新的评估框架,本文对2009年至2012年CET一4中的仔细阅读部分的14篇多项选择文章,7篇选词填空,及相对应的140道题目进行了分析,以此来评估CET-4仔细阅读的内容效度。
研究发现文本输入及预期回答的各项特征与教学大纲及考试大纲的要求基本一致,因此CET-4(2009-2012)仔细阅读部分具有较高的内容效度。具体表现为：1)体裁多样,题材广泛且富有真实性及教育性；2)文章的长度,阅读速度,生词,句子类型及易读度控制的很好,基本上符合CET-4考试大纲的要求；3)考试大纲规定的7种阅读技能基本涉及,因此能够很好地考查考生的语言综合运用能力。
然而,分析中也发现一些问题,例如某些话题及体裁过于集中；文章长度及易读度不够稳定,波动较大；阅读速度略低于考试大纲的要求；短句回答题型从未涉及；某些重要阅读技能,如理解文章的中心意思,未能覆盖。最后,本文根据研究结果对四级试题命制者,英语教师及学习者提出了一些建议。
CET-4, a national standardized test, has been widely known as an influential yardstick to assess Chinese learners'English proficiency, the scores of which have played an important role in the making of high-stakes educational and career decisions. In December2006, CET-4underwent a major reform. Reading comprehension, as an important part of CET-4, also experienced some changes. For example, its proportion was decreased from40%to35%, and time allotment was reduced from35minutes to25minutes. Test type changed from the sole reading in depth to the combination of reading in depth as well as skimming and scanning. As for reading in depth part, besides two multiple choice passages, banked cloze or short answer question was newly added. Since the innovation, studies on CET-4Reading comprehension have mainly focused on skimming and scanning, but reading in depth accounts for a large proportion in CET-4and intensive reading skill is crucial in enhancing people's understanding and communication ability. In view of this, it is necessary to probe into the characteristics of CET-4reading in depth part so as to gain insights into its content validity.
In light of Bachman and Palmer's assessment model (1996) and Teaching Syllabus (2007) as well as Testing Syllabus (2006), a more operative framework for reading tests has been constructed, which is made up of characteristics of the input and characteristics of the expected response. Based on the operational framework, a study has been conducted on the content validity of CET-4reading in depth from the year2009to2012by assessing21passages, including14passages of multiple choice and7passages of banked cloze and140question items.
The results show that both the input and the expected response comply with the requirements of the two syllabuses and thus reading in depth part of CET-4(2009-2012) achieves sound content validity. The major findings are demonstrated as follows:1) the genres are varied and the topics are extensive, authentic and instructive;2) the text length, reading speed, new words, sentence types and readability are well controlled and are basically consistent with the criterion of CET-4Testing Syllabus;3) almost all the seven reading skills are covered in the test, which is able to check the examinees' integrated ability required by the Teaching Syllabus.
However, some problems have also been found:certain topics and genres have been too intensively distributed in the past four years' paper; the text length and readability of some texts are not stable and fluctuate greatly; the reading speed is a bit slower than that required by the Testing Syllabus; short answer question format has not appeared in the seven papers; some important reading skills, like understanding passage's central thought, has never been touched upon in these papers. Finally implications for test designers,English teachers and learners are presented.
根据Bachman和Palmer的任务特征框架(1996),并参照《大学英语四级考试大纲》(2006年修订版)及《大学英语课程教学要求》(2007年版),本文提出了一个更具操作性的阅读测试内容效度评估框架。该框架包括文本输入及预期回答两个方面。依据新的评估框架,本文对2009年至2012年CET一4中的仔细阅读部分的14篇多项选择文章,7篇选词填空,及相对应的140道题目进行了分析,以此来评估CET-4仔细阅读的内容效度。
研究发现文本输入及预期回答的各项特征与教学大纲及考试大纲的要求基本一致,因此CET-4(2009-2012)仔细阅读部分具有较高的内容效度。具体表现为：1)体裁多样,题材广泛且富有真实性及教育性；2)文章的长度,阅读速度,生词,句子类型及易读度控制的很好,基本上符合CET-4考试大纲的要求；3)考试大纲规定的7种阅读技能基本涉及,因此能够很好地考查考生的语言综合运用能力。
然而,分析中也发现一些问题,例如某些话题及体裁过于集中；文章长度及易读度不够稳定,波动较大；阅读速度略低于考试大纲的要求；短句回答题型从未涉及；某些重要阅读技能,如理解文章的中心意思,未能覆盖。最后,本文根据研究结果对四级试题命制者,英语教师及学习者提出了一些建议。
CET-4, a national standardized test, has been widely known as an influential yardstick to assess Chinese learners'English proficiency, the scores of which have played an important role in the making of high-stakes educational and career decisions. In December2006, CET-4underwent a major reform. Reading comprehension, as an important part of CET-4, also experienced some changes. For example, its proportion was decreased from40%to35%, and time allotment was reduced from35minutes to25minutes. Test type changed from the sole reading in depth to the combination of reading in depth as well as skimming and scanning. As for reading in depth part, besides two multiple choice passages, banked cloze or short answer question was newly added. Since the innovation, studies on CET-4Reading comprehension have mainly focused on skimming and scanning, but reading in depth accounts for a large proportion in CET-4and intensive reading skill is crucial in enhancing people's understanding and communication ability. In view of this, it is necessary to probe into the characteristics of CET-4reading in depth part so as to gain insights into its content validity.
In light of Bachman and Palmer's assessment model (1996) and Teaching Syllabus (2007) as well as Testing Syllabus (2006), a more operative framework for reading tests has been constructed, which is made up of characteristics of the input and characteristics of the expected response. Based on the operational framework, a study has been conducted on the content validity of CET-4reading in depth from the year2009to2012by assessing21passages, including14passages of multiple choice and7passages of banked cloze and140question items.
The results show that both the input and the expected response comply with the requirements of the two syllabuses and thus reading in depth part of CET-4(2009-2012) achieves sound content validity. The major findings are demonstrated as follows:1) the genres are varied and the topics are extensive, authentic and instructive;2) the text length, reading speed, new words, sentence types and readability are well controlled and are basically consistent with the criterion of CET-4Testing Syllabus;3) almost all the seven reading skills are covered in the test, which is able to check the examinees' integrated ability required by the Teaching Syllabus.
However, some problems have also been found:certain topics and genres have been too intensively distributed in the past four years' paper; the text length and readability of some texts are not stable and fluctuate greatly; the reading speed is a bit slower than that required by the Testing Syllabus; short answer question format has not appeared in the seven papers; some important reading skills, like understanding passage's central thought, has never been touched upon in these papers. Finally implications for test designers,English teachers and learners are presented.
引文
Alderson, J. C.,& Urquhart, A. H. (1985). The effect of students'academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing,2 (2),192-204.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C.,& Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (2000). Language testing construction and evaluation. Brijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2006). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D. C:American Psychological Association.
Bachman, L.F., A. Kunman, S. Vanniarajan & B. Lynch. (1988). Task and ability analysis as a basis for examining content and construct comparability in two EFL proficiency test batteries.Language Testing,5(2),128-159.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1999). Language testing in practice. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing,19,453-476.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering:A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Braten, I., & Stromoso, H. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing,16,195-218.
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage content and comprehension in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1),1-24.
Brown, G.,& Yule, G (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. et al (Ed). (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chihara, T., Sakurai, T., & Oller, J. W. (1989). Background and culture as factors in EFL reading comprehension. Language Testing,6(2),143-151.
Davies, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly,3,499-545.
Devine, J. (1987). Interactive Approaches to SLR. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Ding Wangdao, et al. (1994). A handbook of writing. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ebel, R. L., & D. A. Frisbie. (1991). Essential of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: Implications for construct validity. Language Testing,10,133-170.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading:a psycholinguistic guessing games. In Gunderson, D.V. (Ed.). In theoretical models and processes of reading (Second edition), H. Singer and R. Tuddell (Eds). International Reading Association.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In F. J. Kavanagh & G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Grabe, W. (2000). Reading research and its implications for reading assessment. Studies in language testing 9-Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp.226-262). London:Cambridge University Press.
Hale, G. A. (1988). Student major field and text content:interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language Testing, 5(1),49-61.
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing:development, evaluation and research. Boston:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Henning, G. (2001). A guide to language testing:development, evaluation and research. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers (pp.23-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2000). Testing for language teachers. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ingram, E. (1977). Basic concepts in testing. In Allen, J. P. B. and Davis, A. (Eds.), Testing and experimental methods. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jin Y & Yang H. (2006). The English proficiency of college and university students in China:As reflected in the CET. Language, Culture and Curriculum,19(1), 21-36.
Kelly, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. New York:New World Book Company.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundation of behavior research. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing,19 (2),193-220.
Krashen, S. P.,& Terrel, T. D. (1983). The natural approach:Language acquistion in the classroom. Oxford:Pergamon.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing:The construction and use of foreign language tests. London:Longman Group Ltd.
McNamara, T. F. (2003). Language testing (pp.50-53). Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Messick, S. A. (1989). Validity. In Linn, (ed.), Educational measurement. New York: American Council on Education (Macmillan).
Nuttle, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Palmer, A. S. (1997). Language testing in practice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Perkins, K. (1992). The effect of passage and topical structure types on ESL reading comprehension difficulty. Language Testing,9 (2),163-172.
Pollitt, A., & Hutchinson, C. (1987). Calibrated graded assessments:Rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language Testing,4,72-92.
Pumfrey, P. D. (1977). Measuring reading abilities:concepts, sources and applications. London:Hodder & Stoughton.
Riazi, S. M. A. (2004). The impact of text length on EFL students'reading comprehension. Asian EFL,3,235-241.
Richards, J. C. (2002). The language teaching matrix. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Andrew Ortony. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp.99-135). R. C. Anderson et al (Ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey:Erlbaum.
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing,1 (2),147-170.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 17,157-159.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing,22,85-106.
Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. London:Macmillan.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wood, R. B. (2001). Assessment and testing:a survey of research. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
陈晓扣.TEM-4客观试题效度研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2009.
陈燕.全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语考试的阅读理解内容效度研究[D].成都：西南交通大学,2007.
董曼霞.普通高等学校全国统一招生英语考试阅读理解测试内容效度研究[D].重庆：重庆大学,2007.
辜向东,关晓仙.CET阅读测试与大学英语阅读教材易读度抽样研究[J].西安外国语学院学报,2003,11(3)：39-41.
辜向东,李志芳,张书奎.大学英语四级考试快速阅读部分内容效度研究[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2009(1)：258-263.
何莲珍.分题选择完型填空与集库式完形填空的对比试验[J].浙江大学学报,1999,29(6)：97-102
侯艳萍.TEM-4阅读理解测试内容效度分析(2000-2002)[D].上海：上海外国语大学,2004.
蒋淑均.大学英语四、六级考试阅读理解测试内容效度研究(1996-2007)[D].重庆：重庆大学,2009.
金艳,吴江.“内省法”在阅读理解测试研究中的应用[J].外语界,1997(4)：56-59.
李筱菊.语言测试科学与艺术[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1997.
刘润清,韩宝成.语言测试和它的方法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
邱劲.高考英语重庆卷阅读测试内容效度研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2010.
杨惠中,Weir, C. J.大学英语四、六级考试效度研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1998.
余娜.2006-2010年陕西省高考英语阅读试题内容效度分析[D].陕西：陕西师范大学,2011.
张慧.大学英语新四、六级快速阅读理解测试内容效度研究[D]。广西：广西师范大学,2010.
章振邦.新编英语语法教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
邹申.TEM考试效度研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1997.
邹申,张艳莉,周越美.阅读测试中题目类型、策略与分数的关系——TEM-4考试阅读项目的答题效度研究[J].外语与外语教学,2002(5)：19-22.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C.,& Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (2000). Language testing construction and evaluation. Brijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2006). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D. C:American Psychological Association.
Bachman, L.F., A. Kunman, S. Vanniarajan & B. Lynch. (1988). Task and ability analysis as a basis for examining content and construct comparability in two EFL proficiency test batteries.Language Testing,5(2),128-159.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1999). Language testing in practice. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing,19,453-476.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering:A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Braten, I., & Stromoso, H. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing,16,195-218.
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage content and comprehension in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1),1-24.
Brown, G.,& Yule, G (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. et al (Ed). (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chihara, T., Sakurai, T., & Oller, J. W. (1989). Background and culture as factors in EFL reading comprehension. Language Testing,6(2),143-151.
Davies, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly,3,499-545.
Devine, J. (1987). Interactive Approaches to SLR. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Ding Wangdao, et al. (1994). A handbook of writing. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ebel, R. L., & D. A. Frisbie. (1991). Essential of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: Implications for construct validity. Language Testing,10,133-170.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading:a psycholinguistic guessing games. In Gunderson, D.V. (Ed.). In theoretical models and processes of reading (Second edition), H. Singer and R. Tuddell (Eds). International Reading Association.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In F. J. Kavanagh & G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Grabe, W. (2000). Reading research and its implications for reading assessment. Studies in language testing 9-Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp.226-262). London:Cambridge University Press.
Hale, G. A. (1988). Student major field and text content:interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language Testing, 5(1),49-61.
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing:development, evaluation and research. Boston:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Henning, G. (2001). A guide to language testing:development, evaluation and research. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers (pp.23-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2000). Testing for language teachers. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ingram, E. (1977). Basic concepts in testing. In Allen, J. P. B. and Davis, A. (Eds.), Testing and experimental methods. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jin Y & Yang H. (2006). The English proficiency of college and university students in China:As reflected in the CET. Language, Culture and Curriculum,19(1), 21-36.
Kelly, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. New York:New World Book Company.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundation of behavior research. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing,19 (2),193-220.
Krashen, S. P.,& Terrel, T. D. (1983). The natural approach:Language acquistion in the classroom. Oxford:Pergamon.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing:The construction and use of foreign language tests. London:Longman Group Ltd.
McNamara, T. F. (2003). Language testing (pp.50-53). Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Messick, S. A. (1989). Validity. In Linn, (ed.), Educational measurement. New York: American Council on Education (Macmillan).
Nuttle, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Palmer, A. S. (1997). Language testing in practice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Perkins, K. (1992). The effect of passage and topical structure types on ESL reading comprehension difficulty. Language Testing,9 (2),163-172.
Pollitt, A., & Hutchinson, C. (1987). Calibrated graded assessments:Rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language Testing,4,72-92.
Pumfrey, P. D. (1977). Measuring reading abilities:concepts, sources and applications. London:Hodder & Stoughton.
Riazi, S. M. A. (2004). The impact of text length on EFL students'reading comprehension. Asian EFL,3,235-241.
Richards, J. C. (2002). The language teaching matrix. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Andrew Ortony. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp.99-135). R. C. Anderson et al (Ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey:Erlbaum.
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing,1 (2),147-170.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 17,157-159.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing,22,85-106.
Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. London:Macmillan.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wood, R. B. (2001). Assessment and testing:a survey of research. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
陈晓扣.TEM-4客观试题效度研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2009.
陈燕.全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语考试的阅读理解内容效度研究[D].成都：西南交通大学,2007.
董曼霞.普通高等学校全国统一招生英语考试阅读理解测试内容效度研究[D].重庆：重庆大学,2007.
辜向东,关晓仙.CET阅读测试与大学英语阅读教材易读度抽样研究[J].西安外国语学院学报,2003,11(3)：39-41.
辜向东,李志芳,张书奎.大学英语四级考试快速阅读部分内容效度研究[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2009(1)：258-263.
何莲珍.分题选择完型填空与集库式完形填空的对比试验[J].浙江大学学报,1999,29(6)：97-102
侯艳萍.TEM-4阅读理解测试内容效度分析(2000-2002)[D].上海：上海外国语大学,2004.
蒋淑均.大学英语四、六级考试阅读理解测试内容效度研究(1996-2007)[D].重庆：重庆大学,2009.
金艳,吴江.“内省法”在阅读理解测试研究中的应用[J].外语界,1997(4)：56-59.
李筱菊.语言测试科学与艺术[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1997.
刘润清,韩宝成.语言测试和它的方法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
邱劲.高考英语重庆卷阅读测试内容效度研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2010.
杨惠中,Weir, C. J.大学英语四、六级考试效度研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1998.
余娜.2006-2010年陕西省高考英语阅读试题内容效度分析[D].陕西：陕西师范大学,2011.
张慧.大学英语新四、六级快速阅读理解测试内容效度研究[D]。广西：广西师范大学,2010.
章振邦.新编英语语法教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
邹申.TEM考试效度研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1997.
邹申,张艳莉,周越美.阅读测试中题目类型、策略与分数的关系——TEM-4考试阅读项目的答题效度研究[J].外语与外语教学,2002(5)：19-22.