Volume 81, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This article presents axsd discusses a number of empirical findings conœroing the validity of multiple-choice cloze tests as tests of general language proficiency. Foreign students of Dutch at Delft University of Technology were given both a series of separate proficiency tests in nstemng, speaking, reading, writing and text comprehension, and a series of multiple-choice cloze tests. Scores on the multiple-choice cloze tests were found to correlate significantly with each of the proficiency tests. In addition, scores made on the multiple-choice cloze tests appeared to form a solid basis for predictions of the total scores for listening, speaking, reading and writing taken together. Finally, a close structural similarity was found to exist between curves of average scores on successive multiple-choice cloze tests and the presupposed growth of vocabulary during the language learning process. Together, these findings tend to show that multiple-choice cloze tests constitute a valid instrument for measuring general language proficiency.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Campbeil, D.T. and Stanley, J.C.
    (1971) : Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In Gage N.L. , editor, Handbook of Research on Teaching (171–246). Chicago : Rand McNally.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cranney, A. Garr
    (1973) : The construction of two types of cloze reading tests for college students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 60–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Farhady, H.
    (1983) : The disjunctive fallacy between discrete-point and integrative tests. In Oller, J.W. (editor), Issues in Language Testing Research (311–322). Rowley, Massachusetts : Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HiDüfotis, F.B. and Snow, B.G.
    (1980) : An alternative cloze testing procedure : multiple-choice format. In Oiler, J.W. and Ferions, K. , editors, Research in Language Testing (129–133). Rowley, Massachusetts : Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jochems, W. and Montens, F.
    (1986) : Hoe toets je taalvaardigheid? [How to test language proficiency]. Meppel : Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jonz, J.
    (1976) : Improving on the basic egg : The M.C. cloze. Language Learnings26, 255–265.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lord, F.M. and Novick, M.R.
    (1968) : Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, Massachusetts : Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Normally, J.C.
    (1967) : Psychometric Theory. New York : McGraw-Hill.
  9. Oiler, J.W.
    (1979) : Language Tests at School, A Pragmatic Approach. London : Longman
  10. (1982) : "g", what is it?Albuquerque : paper University of New Mexico.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1983) : Evidence for a general language proficiency factor : an expectancy grammar. In Oller, J.W. , editor, Issues in Language Testing Research (3–10). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Porter, D.
    (1976) : Modified cloze procedure : a more valid reading comprehension test. English Language Teaching Journal, 30,151–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Sciarone, A.G.
    (1979) : Woordjes leren in het vreemdetalenonderwijs [Learning words in foreign-language education]. Muiderberg : Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Vollmer, H.J.
    (1983) : The structure of foreign language competence. In Hughes, A. and Porter, D. , editors, Current Developments in Language Testing (3–29). London : Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Vollmer, H.J. and Sang, F.
    (1983) : Competing hypotheses about second language ability : a plea for caution. In Oller, J.W. , editor, Issues in Language Testing Research (29–79). Rowley, Massachusetts : Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Wijnstra, J.M.
    (1977) : Het gebruik van de cloze procedure als maat voor schriftelijke taalbeheersing [Use of the cloze procedure as a measure of written language proficiency]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 6, 262–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error