Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991).Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2013). 2013 – 2014 Information and Registration BULLETIN
TOEFL iBT Test.www.ets.org/toefl/bulletinregPrinceton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Elliott, M., & Wilson, J. (2013). Context validity. In A. Geranpayeh & Taylor, L. (Eds.)
Examining listening: research and practice in assessing second language listening
(pp. 152–241). Studies in language testing 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data(2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of
thinking during experts’performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness,
P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert
performance(pp. 223–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Faerch, G., & Kasper, G. (1983).Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.
Field, J. (2008).Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Field, J. (2009). A cognitive validation of the lecture-listening component of the IELTS listening
paper.IELTS research reports, 9. British Council/IELTS Australia/Cambridge ESOL.
Field, J. (2011). Into the mind of the academic listener.Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
10 (2), 102–112.
Field, J. (2012, March).Cognitive validity. Seminar talk and handout presented at the CRELLA
Spring Seminar, University of Bedfordshire.
Field, J. (2012). The cognitive validity of the lecture-based question in the IELTS Listening paper.
In L. Taylor & C. J. Weir (Eds.),IELTS collected Papers 1: Research in reading and listening
assessment, studies in language testing (Vol. 34, pp. 391–453). Cambridge:
UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
Field, J. (2013). Cognitive validity. In A. Geranpayeh & L. Taylor (Eds.),Examining listening.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension-an
overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.)Academic listening: Research perspectives(pp. 7–29).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture
comprehension.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435 – 458.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). s language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J., & Peack, Matthhew. (2001).Research perspectives on English for academic
purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2010). Listening in a second language. In D. A. Wolvin (Ed.),
Listening & Human Communication(pp. 158–177). Wiley-Blackwell.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1994). Can multiple-choice reading tests be construct valid?
Psychological Science, 5, 107 – 110.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension?
The case for the construct validity of TOEFL's minitalks.Language Testing, 16(1), 2–32.
Fulcher, G. (2003).Testing second language speaking. London: Longman/Pearson Education.
Fulcher, G. (2014). Language testing and philosophy. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.),The companion to
language testing(pp. 1431–1451). London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990).Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building.Discourse Processes, 25, 264 – 304.
Goh, C. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies
and tactics.Language Teaching Research, 2, 124 – 147.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’listening comprehension problems.
System, 28, 55 – 75.
202 References