Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 456

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Alternatives in Language Assessment

Brown, James D., Hudson, Thom·1998·TESOL Quarterly

Abstract

Language testing differs from testing in other content areas because language teachers have more choices to make. The purpose of this article is to help language teachers decide what types of language tests to use in their particular institutions and classrooms for their specific purposes. The various kinds of language assessments are classified into three broad categories: (a) selected-response assessments (including true-false, matching, and multiple-choice assessments); (b) constructedresponse assessments (including fill-in, short-answer, and performance assessments); and (c) personal-response assessments (including conference, portfolio, and self- or peer assessments). For each assessment type, we provide a clear definition and explore its advantages and disadvantages. We end the article with a discussion of how teachers can make rational choices among the various assessment options by thinking about (a) the consequences of the washback effect of assessment procedures on language teaching and learning, (b) the significance of feedback based on the assessment results, and (c) the importance of using multiple sources of information in making decisions based on assessment information.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3587999

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Metadata

Authors
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T.
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1998
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
653
ISSN
0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138032061
Cited by
456
References
2
FWCI
38.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Alternatives in Language Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3587999
The paper
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The Alternatives in Language Assessment. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587999

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.