1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 143, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 143, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Performance on language tests varies as a function of various factors. These factors, according to Bachman (1990) include: communicative language ability, test method facets, personal attributes that are not related to the ability we want to measure, and random factors which are unpredictable and temporary. Since the purpose of language tests is to measure language ability, a fundamental concern in the development and use of language tests is to identify potential sources of error and test bias in a given measure of language ability and to minimize the effects of these factors, hence to maximize the reliability and the validity of the tests. This study with 1984 male and female PhD candidates with an age range of 21-51 who took the Tarbiat Modarres University (TMU) TOEFL-like English Examination as a prerequisite for their admission for PhD programs attempted to identify one of the potential sources of test bias called impulsivity / reflectivity (Imp/Ref) cognitive style.

The purpose of the present study was two fold: On the one hand, the present research attempted to investigate the relationships and interaction between impulsivity/reflectivity, age, sex and performance on TMU English Exam. This, on the other hand, required restandardization of Persian Impulsiveness Questionnaire in Iran. To achieve this purpose of the study, having gone through the restandardization procedures, the data obtained from 1822 subjects regarding impulsivity/reflectivity were factor-analyzed through Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) in order to check the construct validity of the test. To achieve the main objective of the research, the subjects were classified into three groups of high, medium and low impulsives to see if this cognitive style has any relationship with Ph.D. candidates’ performance on TMU English Exam. Moreover, the role of gender and age in the subjects’ performance and the interaction effect of impulsivity, age and sex on their performance were taken into consideration. The results revealed that both impulsivity and gender are significant factors in the subjects’ performance. The overall main effect of age and the interaction effect were found to be non significant.

© 2004 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.143.0.504646
2004-01-01
2025-03-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.2143/ITL.143.0.504646
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BACHMAN, L.F.
    (1990) Fundamental consideration in Language Testing, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BARRATT, E. S.
    (1959) Anxiety and impulsiveness related to Psychomotor efficiency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 9, 191–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BARRATT, E. S. & PATTON, J. H.
    (1983) Impulsivity: cognitive, behavioral and psychophysiological correlates. In Zuckerman, M. (ed.), Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity and anxiety (pp. 77–122). New York: Earlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BARRATT, E. S. Pattone, J. , Olsson, N. G. & Zuker, G.
    (1981) Impulsivity and paced tapping.Journal of Motor Behavior, 13, 286–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DORON, S.
    (1973) Reflectivity-Impulsivity and Their influence on Reading for Inference for Adult Students of ESL. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. EHRMAN, M. and R. Oxford
    (1990) Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an Intensive Training Setting.Modern Language Journal, 74,3, 311–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. EYSENCK, H.J. , SYBILB. & G. EYSENCK
    (1999) Manual of the Eyscnck Personality Scales (EPS Adult), Hodder & Stoughton, London Sydney Auckland.
  8. EYSENCK, H. J.
    (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Thomas, Springfield.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. EYSENCK, H. J. and S. B. C. EYSENCK
    (1973) On the Nature of Extroversion. In H. J. Eysenck , Eysenck on Extroversion. Great Britain: Fletcher and Son Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. EYSENCK, S. B. G. & EYSENCK, H. J.
    (1977) The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality. Biritish Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. EYSENCK, S. B. G. , PEARSON, P. R. , EASTING, G. & ALLSOPP, J. F.
    (1985) Age norms for impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 613–619.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. EYSENCK, S. B. G. & ZUCKERMAN, M.
    (1978) The relationship between sensation- seeking and Eysenck’s dimensions of personality, British Journal of Psychology, 69, 483–487.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FONTANA, D.
    (1995) Psychology for Teachers. 3rd ed., Uk: Macmillan Press Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GERBING, D. W. , Ahadi, S. A. & Patron, J. H.
    (1987) Toward a conceptualization of impulsivity: Components across the behavioral and self-report domains. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 357–379.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HAGHIGHI, M.
    (forthcoming). On the Reliability of TMU English Exam. Master’s Thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran.
  16. HANSEN, J.
    (1984) Field dependence-independence and language testing evidence from six pacific island cultures. TESOL QUARTERLY, 18, 311–24
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HATCH, E. & A. LAZARÍAN
    (1991) The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics, New York, Newbury House Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. JAMIESON, J.
    (1992) Cognitive Style of Reflection/Impulsivity and Field Independence/ Dependence and ESL Success. The Modern Language Journal, 76, iv, 491–501.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kagan, J.
    (1965) Reflection/impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36, 609–628.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KAGAN, J. , PEARSON, L. and WELCH, L.
    (1966) Conceptual Impulsivity and Inductive Reasoning.Child Development, 37, 583–594.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KAGAN, J. and ROSMAN, B. L.
    (1964) Cardiac and respiratory correlates of attention and an analytic attitude. Journal of Experimental child Psychology., 1, 50–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. KAGAN, J. , ROSMAN, B. L. , DAY, D. , ALBERT J. and PHILLIPS W.
    (1964) Information processing in the child significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychol. Monogr., 78, 1–578.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. KlANY, G. R.
    (1997) Extroversion and Pedagogical Setting As Sources of Variation in Different Aspects of English Proficiency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, The United Kingdom.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. KlANY, G. R. and M. Nazarpour
    (2001) On the Construct Validity of TMU English Exam. Paper Presented in Tabriz Azad University Conference on Issues in Language Teaching and Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MESSER, S. B.
    (1976) Reflection-Impulsivity: A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1026–1052.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. MILANOVIC, M.
    (1988) The construct validation of a preformance-based batery of English language prograll testsUnpublished doctoral disertation, University of London.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. NEWSOM, R. S. and A. J. H. Gaite
    (1972) The Retention of Logically Meaningful Versus Psychologically Meaningful Prose Material. Paper Presented at the Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Minueapolis.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. NIELSEN, J. M.
    (1990) Feminist Research Methods. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. OLLER, J. W.
    (1979b) Language Tests at School: A Pragmatic Approach. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1980) A Comment on specific variance versus global variance in certain EFI tests. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (4), 527–530.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. PEARSON, P. R.
    (1986) Impulsivity and Religosity.Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 1, 89–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. PIROUZNIA, M.
    (1994) The Impact of Impulsivity/ Reflectivity on EFL Reading Comprehension, MA Thesis. Tehran University.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. READENCE, J. E. & R. S. Baldin
    (1978) The relationship of cognitive style and phonics instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 72: 1, 44–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. SCALES, A. M.
    (1984) Alternatives to Standardized Tests in Reading Eduction: Cognitive Styles and Informal Measures. Negro Educational Review, 38, 2, 99–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SPOLSKY, B.
    (1973) What does it mean to know a language? Or how do yon get someone to perform his competence?In J. W. Oiler & J. C. Richards (Eds.) Focus on the learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the language teacher (164-176). Rowley, Mass.: Newbary House.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. STANFIELD, C. , & HANSEN, J.
    (1983) Field dependence-independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL QUARTERLY, 17, 29–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. WANGER, COOK , FIEDMAN and STEPHEN
    (1998) Staying with their First Impulse?: The Relationship between Impulsivity/ Reflectivity, Field Dependence/ Field Independence and Answer changes on a Multiple-Choice Exam in a Fifth-Grade Sample. Journal of Research and Development in Eduction, 31, 3, 166–75.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.143.0.504646
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cognitive style; Impulsivity; Reflectivity; TMU English Exam

Most Cited

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