Evaluation of the Usefulness of the<i>Versant for English</i>Test: A Response

Abstract

This article responds to a critique of Ordinate Corporation's Versant for English test (formerly PhonePass and SET-10). The critique (Chun, 2006 Chun, C. W. 2006. An analysis of a language test for employment: The authenticity of the PhonePass test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3: 295–306. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) purports to apply the language task framework of Bachman and Palmer (1996) Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. 1996. Language testing in practice, Oxford, , England: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] and the Test Fairness framework of Kunnan (2004) as guides for an analysis. However, the analysis fails to apply either framework appropriately, leading to a misguided conclusion. Here, we present readers with a more balanced analysis by clarifying the issues that the critic has confused, particularly with regard to the authenticity and construct of the test tasks. Finally, we suggest that a correct application of the usefulness framework of Bachman and Palmer (1996) Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. 1996. Language testing in practice, Oxford, , England: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] shows Versant for English to be a useful test in many contexts.