Table 1 Summary of studies on MSRT Test (last 5 years)
From: Test review of Iranian English language proficiency test: MSRT test
Study title | Year | Summary of findings |
|---|---|---|
Applying a two-parameter item response model to explore the psychometric properties: The case of the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (MSRT) high-stakes English Language Proficiency test (Ghahraki, Tavakoli, & Ketabi, 2022) | 2022 | This study states that the MSRT English proficiency test has important consequences but it is difficult for test-takers because it accommodates some items that do not function effectively or work negatively. Also, the findings suggest the need for accountability and quality assurance in the test. The findings in this study showed some items lack discriminating power |
Examining differential item functioning (DIF) for Iranian EFL test takers with different fields of study (Rashvand Semiyari, & Ahangari, 2022). | 2022 | This study examines differential item functioning (DIF) in the MSRT test, focusing on two groups of test-takers from different academic majors. I was found that the results indicate that science students outperformed humanities students, particularly in the structure and written expressions (SWE) and reading comprehension (RC) sections. The study also recommends that other variables such as gender may bring about bias in the assessment results |
Exploring the shortcomings of the Iranian MSRT English proficiency test (Ghorbani, Abbassi, & Razali, 2021) | 2021 | This study examined the experience of MSRT test-takers. It suggests that MSRT fails to assess productive speaking and writing skills, and this fact results in an underrepresentation of the construct it aims to measure (language proficiency). Moreover, it accentuates the inappropriate listening conditions in some testing centers which ends in bias |
Comparison of ANGOF-based IRT method and bookmark method for the standard setting of MSRT language test (Jalalizadeh et al., 2019) | 2019 | This study compares the Angof-based IRT method and the Bookmark method. The results indicated that both methods yield higher cut-off scores than those determined by the Ministry of Science. The research suggests a need for revising the standard score determination of the MSRT test |
A qualitative investigation of factors affecting a preparation course for MSRT: a grounded theory (Heshmatifar, Zareian, & Davoudi, 2018) | 2019 | This study used grounded theory and in-depth interviews to identify influential factors for enrolling in MSRT test preparation courses. A theoretical model was developed |
The application of G-theory on MSRT (MCHE) score dependability; variability due to persons, gender, subject fields, sections, and items (Ghorbani, Abbassi, & Razali, 2021) | 2019 | This study examined the factors contributing to the dependability of MSRT test scores, including persons, gender, subject fields, sections, and items. The results showed high reliability and the importance of item difficulty and section scores, while gender had minimal impact. The findings can inform test development and research |