Abstract
It is not uncommon for immigration-seekers to be actively involved in taking various language tests for immigration purposes. Given the large-scale and high-stakes nature those language tests possess, the validity issues (e.g., appropriate score-based interpretations and decisions) associated with them are of great importance as test scores may play a gate-keeping role in immigration. Though interest in investigating the validity of language tests for immigration purposes is becoming prevalent, there has to be a systematic review of the research foci and results of this body of research. To address this need, the current paper critically reviewed 11 validation studies on language assessment for immigration over the last two decades to identify what has been focused on and what has been overlooked in the empirical research and to discuss current research interests and future research trends. Assessment Use Argument (AUA) framework of Bachman and Palmer (2010), comprising four inferences (i.e., assessment records, interpretations, decisions, and consequences), was adopted to collect and examine evidence of test validity. Results showed the consequences inference received the most investigations focusing on immigration-seekers’ and policymakers’ perceptions on test consequences, while the decisions inference was the least probed stressing immigration-seekers’ attitude towards the impartiality of decision-making. It is recommended that further studies could explore more kinds of stakeholders (e.g., test developers) in terms of their perceptions on the test and investigate more about the fairness of decision-making based on test scores. Additionally, the current AUA framework includes only positive and negative consequences that an assessment may engender but does not take compounded consequences into account. It is suggested that further research could enrich the framework. The paper sheds some light on the field of language assessment for immigration and brings about theoretical, practical, and political implications for different kinds of stakeholders (e.g., researchers, test developers, and policymakers).
Highlights
Interest in language assessment for immigration started approximately two decades ago (Kunnan, 2012a)
The Assessment Use Argument (AUA) framework proposed by Bachman and Palmer (2010), carrying both conceptual and practical functions in test evaluation, contains four specific inferences to be made about test use: assessment records, interpretations of the test-taker ability based on their score, decisions that are made as a result of the interpretations, and consequences of those decisions for stakeholders
When there is high agreement among the raters, the general claim is supported. This inference may not be directly linked to language assessment for immigration purposes, but it provides a solid foundation for further validation steps because a strong correlation of test scores could strengthen and consolidate the reliability of the test
Summary
Interest in language assessment for immigration started approximately two decades ago (Kunnan, 2012a). Validation is a broader term and refers to the evaluation process to argue for the validity of score-based interpretations, decisions, and consequences (Bachman, 2005; Im et al, 2019; Giraldo, 2020). It plays an indispensable role in the arena of language assessment as it gathers both theoretical and empirical evidence to reveal how an assessment is used as expected and accounts for beneficial uses (Kane, 2006; Chapelle and Voss, 2013). The present paper critically reviewed the validation research on language assessment for immigration purposes over the last 20 years, and the framework that guides the paper has been first demonstrated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
