Building a Validity Argument for the Use of Academic Language Tests for Immigration Purposes: Evidence from Immigration-Seeking Test-Takers

Sep 2, 2026

Validity is treated as a property of test use rather than the test itself, requiring a new validation program when an academic language test is used for an unintended purpose. This small-scale study validates the use of International English Language Testing System and TOEFL for assessing skilled immigration eligibility. Data from 39 immigration-seeking test-takers inform analysis within contemporary unitary validity theory. Results show varied perceptions, with generally positive views on reliability, washback, and fairness, alongside concerns about factors affecting performance and broader consequences beyond washback.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Study focus

Data and validity framework

Key findings

Implications

| | | | --- | --- | | Language Education & Assessment, 2 (3), 135-154 (2019) [https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n3.148](https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n3.148) | | | Building a Validity Argument for the Use of Academic Language Tests for Immigration Purposes: Evidence from Immigration-Seeking Test-Takers | | | NGOC THI HUYEN HOANG a
a University of Queensland, Australia [Email: huyenngochoang@gmail.com](Email: huyenngochoang@gmail.com) | | | Abstract
As validity pertains to test use rather than the test itself, using a test for unintended purposes requires a new validation program using additional evidence from relevant sources. This small-scale study contributes to the validation of the use of originally academic language tests—the International English Language Testing System and the Test of English as a Foreign Language—for assessing skilled immigration eligibility. Data were collected from 39 immigration-seeking test-takers, who are arguably under-represented in validation research. Analysis was informed by contemporary validity theory, which treats validity as a unitary concept incorporating score reliability, score interpretation, scorebased decisions and their consequences. Results showed that the test-takers’perceptions varied widely. The evidence supporting this use included generally positive perceptions of the scores’ reliability, washback effect, and fairness of score-based decisions. The refuting evidence concerned factors perceived to interfere with test-takers’ performance and the complex consequences for the test-takers in aspects other than washback. However, overwhelmingly, as test-takers found the score-based decisions as fair, the validity judgement appeared tilted towards the positive side from the perspectives of these key stakeholders. Although the ultimate validity judgement requires the examination of evidence from other significant stakeholders as well, the present study has contributed valuable and unique evidence and bears important implications for research, practice, and policy particularly in high-stakes contexts such as immigration.
Keywords: contemporary validity theory, immigration, test-taker voices, test-taker inclusive validation, test use for unintended purposes, language assessment. | | | Aspects of reliability | (Strongly) agree | Neutral | (Strongly)
disagree | Don’t know/don’t
remember/non-response | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Effective measure | 19 (49%) | 8 (21%) | 12 (31%) | 0 | | Accurate scores | 18 (46%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (25%) | 0 | | Predictivity | 14 (36%) | 9 (23%) | 14 (36%) | 2 (5%) | | Perceived inferences with test performance | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Unfamiliarity with tests | 16 (41%) | 14 (36%) | 8 (21%) | 1 | (3%) | | Testing condition | 25 (64%) | 6 (15%) | 8 (21%) | 0 | | | Test administration | 19 (49%) | 15 (39%) | 5 (13%) | 0 | | | Test structure | 18 (46%) | 13 (33%) | 8 (21%) | 0 | | | Test content/topics | 10 (26%) | 16 (41%) | 13 (33%) | 0 | | | Question types | 12 (31%) | 16 (41%) | 11 (28%) | 0 | | | Feelings while taking tests
Perceived inferences with | 7 (18%)
test score | 12 (31%) | 20 (51%) | 0 | | | Scoring system | 5 (13%) | 17 (44%) | 15 (39%) | 2 | (5%) | | Consistency between raters | 5 (13%) | 17 (44%) | 14 (36%) | 3 | (8%) | | Aspect of score use | Test-taker perceptions | Frequency & percentage | | --- | --- | --- | | Extent of reliance | Appropriate
Inappropriate:
• Too heavy
• Should not rely on the score
• No comment | 22 (56%) 16 (41%)
• 6 (38%)• 4 (25%)
• 6 (38%) 1 (3%) | | Aspect of score use | Test-taker perceptions | Frequency & percentage | | --- | --- | --- | | Cut-off scores | Appropriate | 20 (51%) | | | Too high | 10 (26%) | | | Too low | 3 (8%) | | | Some too high, others too low | 4 (10%) | | | Don’t know/ Non-response | 2 (5%) |

FAQs

Why does the study argue for a new validation program when tests are used for immigration purposes?

Validity is viewed as tied to test use rather than the test itself. Using an academic language test for an unintended purpose requires additional evidence under a validation program.

What validity framework guides the analysis in this research?

The study uses contemporary validity theory, treating validity as a unitary concept that includes score reliability, interpretation, decisions, and their consequences.

What evidence supports and what evidence challenges the immigration-use validity judgement?

Generally positive perceptions support the use, especially regarding score reliability, washback effects, and fairness. Refuting evidence includes perceived factors that interfere with performance and complex consequences for test-takers beyond washback.

Sep 2, 2026

Upload by Riley West