This study aims to examine whether CEFR-based CELA can be presented as a placement test for TOEIC. Data collected from 1,142 college freshmen who participated in both tests were analyzed to determine: 1) how hypothetical levels of a CELA score differed from existing TOEIC levels; 2) if there was any significant correlation between test scores and final grades; and 3) how native English professors viewed CELA as a placement test. The analysis revealed that CELA did not perform better a placement test than TOEIC. It did not have a higher correlation with the final grade either. However, the fact that CELA is more aligned with the content and objective of the English course and that most native English professors consider CELA more suitable as a placement test can be seen as positive factors supporting it to replace the existing placement test. Results of this study if curriculum and student levels are different.

This study investigated the test scores and student responses about placement in the General Education English Program by level and major. Using composite scores of College Scholastic Ability Test for English (CSAT) and the in-house speaking test (SEPT), the study placed students into four levels (2–5). It also categorized 1,847 students into three groups: Humanities and Social Science (HS), Business Administration and Law (BL), and Science and Engineering (SE). Higher levels showed significant differences in oral proficiency while having similar results on the CSAT. Lower levels attained similar scores on the SEPT but represented a vast range of CSAT scores. Participants across all levels understood the purpose of the placement test, perceived the content of the SEPT as appropriate, and positively responded toward the accuracy of placement. HS and BL scored higher on the test than SE, confirming the contrast between engineering and non-engineering majors. HS, however, showed more positive evaluation on the accuracy of placement than BL and SE. Across groups and levels, all participants opposed exclusively using CSAT in course placement. This study discusses utilizing data by various variables to enhance differentiated instruction and to meet unique needs of students at all levels with different majors; it also addresses using CSAT scores as the exclusive criterion.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether three standard-setting methods would produce sufficiently consistent results for placement decisions. The cut scores were derived from modified Angoff method, borderline group method, and cluster analysis. The results indicate that the cut scores derived from the three standard setting methods did not entirely agree with each other in assigning students into different levels, suggesting that the choice of standard setting method influenced the resulting cut scores. Specifically, the borderline-group method tended to produce lower cut scores than the other two methods. The cluster analysis yielded two cut scores, which were very similar to the cut scores derived from the modified Angoff method at the corresponding levels. The implications of the findings are discussed and avenues for further study are suggested.

This study analyzes a nationwide English placement test in the Rasch framework Data were obtained from 297 first-year junior high school students. The assessed person (.75) and item reliability (.95) indicate that the test was fairly consistent and reproducible with other samples of examinees. About 60% of total variation was explained under the assumption of unidimensionality. The person separation index suggests that two and a half ability levels can be differentiated by means of the test. Overall, the ability distribution of students was higher than the difficulty distribution of items. The fìt statistics identified a few misfìt items, but their impact on the utility of the test appears nonsignificant.

This study aims to explore the placement practices in five college English programs and four university language institutes. Specifically, the present study investigated the types of placement tests they administer, the degree of the correspondence between course objectives and test content, and validation procedures. This study also examined teachers" perceptions on the appropriateness of placement decisions. The data were collected through web site searches, semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. The results showed that proficiency tests were used for placement purposes in the college English programs. The language institutions administered placement tests only for their speaking courses in the form of oral interviews. The content of placement tests did not largely correspond with the course objectives. All English language programs did not have systematic procedures for identifying misplaced students. Finally, instructors reported that more than one third of the classes included misplaced students. The implications of the findings are discussed.