ABSTRACT
The discussion of the past 6 years in the language testing and educational measurement literature suggests new perspectives on reliability and validity (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Linn, Baker, &Dunbar, 1991; Messick, 1994; Moss, 1994, 1996; Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardener, 1991). In particular, the work of Moss extends the discussion beyond the traditional, positivist/psychometric paradigm. This study examines the abstracts of papers presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC) since its beginning, in order to investigate whether language testing research has been dominated by the traditional paradigm, or whether the seeds of alternative perspectives on reliability and validity have in fact been taking root in our community, more or less quietly, over the past few years. The analysis focuses on the ways in which reliability and validity have been addressed, both implicitly in the methods employed, and explicitly in theoretical argumentation. The results of this investigation document the extent to which the LTRC community has already engaged itself with modes of inquiry beyond the positivist/psychometric and has already begun to formulate new, alternative perspectives on reliability and validity.
