Validation of the Results of Linking Speaking Test of IELTS to China’s Standards of English Language Ability


  •  Yuyue Chen    
  •  Xuefeng Wu    

Abstract

This study, taking into consideration of teachers’ as well as students’ judgments, explored the generalizability and consistency of the results of linking speaking test of IELTS to China’s Standards of English Language Ability (CSE). Nine college English teachers and 81 undergraduate students judged the degree of congruence between the IELTS speaking test and 72 relevant CSE descriptors to generate evidence of generalizability; 2 teachers judged the CSE levels of 11 videos of IELTS speaking test and 113 students assessed themselves based on the self-assessment scale, to provide data for exploring consistency from three perspectives: consistency of teachers’ judgments, consistency between teachers’ judgments and empirical scores, and consistency between students’ actual ability and the ability demonstrated in the self-assessment scale. The evidence showed that the linking results performed well both in generalizability and consistency from the perspective of both teachers and students, but students rated comparatively low than teachers both in the two facets. However, considering that certain descriptors are relatively abstract and separate from daily life situations in IELTS speaking test, it is understandable that students rate low in generalizability; and considering students' insufficient self-assessment ability, their relative low recognition in consistency also get explained. In general, therefore, the linking results show good generalizability and consistency. 



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1916-4742
  • ISSN(Online): 1916-4750
  • Started: 2008
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

Citation Metrics (for informational purposes only; sourced from Google Scholar as of May 2026):

1. Citations (May 2026): 112462

2. h-index (May 2026): 145

3. i10-index (February 2025): 1811

*Note: Citation metrics vary significantly across indexing platforms. These figures are provided transparently and should not be used for cross-database comparisons. For methodological details, please refer to the official  Google Scholar Metrics documentation.

Contact