(2024) 14:4
Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00270-0

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

REVIEW

Test review of Iranian English language
proficiency test: MSRT test
Ali Khodi1* , Logendra Stanley Ponniah1, Amir Hossein Farrokhi2 and Fateme Sadeghi2*Correspondence:
Alikhodi92@gmail.com
1
Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya,
Malaysia
2
University of Neyshabur,
Neyshabur, Iran

Abstract
The current article evaluates a national English language proficiency test known
as the “MSRT test” which is used to determine the eligibility of candidates for admission to and completion of higher education programs in Iran. Students in all majors
take this standardized, high-stake criterion-referenced test to determine if they haveobtained the minimum English proficiency level and can be graduated. The present
paper seeks to examine the test and its psychometrics characteristics due to the significance of such a high-stakes examination that may have social and long-lasting effects
on the participants. It is claimed that the test measures participants’ “knowledge of language” for communication rather than their “knowledge about language” in a constrained context. As a result, the test dimensionality and validity are up for debate. It
was found that fundamental revisions in terms of test format and content are required
to improve the test quality. The current study examined the areas that are yet unexplored and attempts to describe the MSRT assessment comprehensively.
Keywords: Evaluation, Iranian university English exam, Language test, MSRT
examination, Test review

Introduction
The MSRT test, organized by the “Student Affairs Organization” affiliated with Iran’s
Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, tends to evaluate the English language
proficiency of the candidates. It is administered approximately ten times per year in
major cities, with results announced through the exam portal within 3 to 4 days. Previously known as MCHE (Ministry of Culture and Higher Education), MSRT stands for
Ministry of Science, Research and Technology.
The MSRT test, similar to the TOLIMO test, is considered a necessary tool in theevaluation process for doctoral applicants in Iran. It is sometimes referred to as internal TOEFL or doctoral TOEFL. While some institutions require passing grades onthese exams, they are simpler and less expensive than TOEFL and IELTS, despite beingreferred to as a “little TOEFL test.” Farsi resources have been available for this exam foryears, eliminating the need for applicants to use materials in their native language.
The MSRT test is taken by master’s and PhD students to assess their language
competence, with many candidates being doctoral candidates due to the language© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permitsuse, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

test requirement for the doctoral exam. The Ministry of Science, Research, andTechnology, has been organizing the MSRT exam.
The exam booklet consists of three sections: 30 listening questions, followed by
30 grammar and 40 reading questions. Incorrect answers do not impact correct
answers, but multiple responses to a question result in a zero score. The test isscored out of 100, with one point awarded for each correct answer. PhD students
typically require a minimum score of 50 to pass, while a score of 40 is ideal for bachelor’s degree candidates seeking admission to graduate studies.
Retaking the exam is allowed twice for better scores, except for candidates whoscore above 75, as retakes are restricted for a year. The exam’s degree is authorized
by the Ministry of Science and recognized by approved universities. However, thecertificate is valid for two years and cannot be used for admission to international
universities. The MSRT test assesses language proficiency through listening, reading, and grammar items. However, it may not provide a comprehensive measure oflanguage proficiency. Language ability, as is defined in principle in this test, includes
producing conversational content and maintaining coherence in the written format.
The test’s limitations in evaluating these aspects raise concerns about its reliability.
Investigating the psychometric aspects will determine the test’s capacity to assesslanguage proficiency.
In terms of the scoring procedures, it should be mentioned that the MSRT lacks
negative points for wrong answers, leading to chance achievement in scores due toguessing. However, deducting points, in special tests that apply it, may make testtakers cautious, resulting in unanswered questions. Although this test seems to begenerally reliable, valid, and practical, with easy accessibility, computerized scoring,and reasonable fees. However, it does not assess speaking and writing skills, lacks
real-world relevance, and has inappropriate administration conditions.
Despite the fact that the test is practical, convenient accessible, user-friendly withcomputerized scoring, and cost-effectiveness, it is imperative to approach the assessment of its validity and reliability with utmost caution (Tadayon and Khodi, 2017).
It is essential not to underestimate the fundamental importance of ensuring that thetest effectively measures the intended constructs and consistently yields dependable results. Thus, the results of several research studies conducted to evaluate these
critical aspects in the last 5 years have been summarized in Table 1.
As indicated in the literature, the MSRT test exhibits several shortcomings thatwarrant attention. These include a lack of sufficient discriminating power, genderbias in its results, inappropriate listening conditions, the need for standard score
determination, and imbalanced item difficulty. A detailed analysis of the test will bepresented.

Test formats
The test is structured into three distinct sections, each targeting different aspects
of English language proficiency. Listening comprehension, grammar (structure andwritten expression), and comprehension (reading and vocabulary) of the English language all together measure the degree of English competence.

Page 2 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

Page 3 of 11

Table 1 Summary of studies on MSRT Test (last 5 years)
Study title

Year Summary of findings

Applying a two-parameter item response model to 2022 This study states that the MSRT English proficiency
explore the psychometric properties: The case of
test has important consequences but it is difficult
the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology
for test-takers because it accommodates some items(MSRT) high-stakes English Language Proficiency
that do not function effectively or work negatively.
test (Ghahraki, Tavakoli, & Ketabi, 2022)
Also, the findings suggest the need for accountability and quality assurance in the test. The findingsin this study showed some items lack discriminating
power
Examining differential item functioning (DIF)
for Iranian EFL test takers with different fields ofstudy (Rashvand Semiyari, & Ahangari, 2022).

2022 This study examines differential item functioning(DIF) in the MSRT test, focusing on two groups oftest-takers from different academic majors. I wasfound that the results indicate that science students
outperformed humanities students, particularly inthe structure and written expressions (SWE) andreading 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 MSRTEnglish 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 itaims to measure (language proficiency). Moreover, it
accentuates the inappropriate listening conditions insome testing centers which ends in bias

Comparison of ANGOF-based IRT method andbookmark 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 indicatedthat both methods yield higher cut-off scores thanthose 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 groundedtheory (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 2019 This study examined the factors contributing to thedependability; variability due to persons, gender,
dependability of MSRT test scores, including persons,subject fields, sections, and items (Ghorbani,
gender, subject fields, sections, and items. The results
Abbassi, & Razali, 2021)
showed high reliability and the importance of itemdifficulty and section scores, while gender had minimal impact. The findings can inform test development and research

Listening comprehension

This segment consists of 30 questions in total and features discussions between individuals with American accents. Following each chat and a brief pause, several questions related to that conversation are posed. You have 15 min to respond to thesequestions. In order to be better prepared to perform when answering the questionsof the listening part, applicants can use numerous resources accessible in the market
and online.

GrammarThis part consists of 30 questions, divided into two categories. In the first category(15 questions), you must provide the correct response to questions in which a partof a phrase is blank. You will come across questions in the second category, known

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

as error detection questions (15 questions), where the statement contains an error,
and you must pick the erroneous response to represent the correct answer. You have
20 min to complete these questions. Most of the MSRT grammar questions are fromthe TOEFL book by Longman.
Reading comprehension

There are 40 questions in this section, which typically includes four academic texts forwhich you must provide answers. This process will take 40 min to complete. The subjects in the reading part of the TOEFL Longman book are frequently referenced in thecomprehension section’s questions. The reading exam segment often contains several
vocabulary questions. The 504 and Essential Words for the TOEFL books are the major
sources for vocabulary questions.

Test qualities and psychometric aspects
Validity and reliability

The question “Does a test measure what it is designed to assess?” is often asked when atest is administered. It refers to the concept of validity, which was mentioned by Lado
(1961). For an examination’s results to be taken into account, comprehended, and correctly applied, it must possess validity (Heaton, 1975, p. 153). Validity technically isdefined as “the degree to which we may interpret a particular test score as an indicator of the abilities or constructs, we aim to measure” for the test (Bachman & Palmer,
1996, p. 21). As an academic examination intended to assess candidates’ proficiency, theMSRT test should encompass certain characteristics, including validity and reliability.
Validity for the current exam refers to assessing what the test is intended to measure, but
we think that this outdated definition should also include the social validity (ChalhoubDeville, 2016) aspect of the interpretations of the results (Messick, 1980). If it is claimed
that the test examines the communicative ability of the learners and candidates, it
should function accordingly. If it assesses something else while the students focus on theclaimed aspect, they may lose their chance to pass the test, and ultimately, they will face
problems in their education. Thus, the social aspect of validity is violated. We strongly
believe that no test could be regarded as valid outside of the intended application andcontext (Messick, 1989). Thus, various aspects relating to the test’s validity are discussed,
clarified, and meticulously considered we go along (Messick, 2013).
As indicated by the statistical analyses and emphasized in the literature, the MSRT
designers were not highly successful to accomodate the concept of langauge proficiency
into the form of writeen questions. Missing other language sub-skills such as writing (Zabihi, Mehrani-rad, Khodi, 2019), and speaking justifies that the test questions arevery limited to accommodate all dimensions of a complex concept such as language proficiency (Karami and Khodi, 2021). Speaking and writing were not taken into account in
the MSRT test due to the difficulty in assessing the test-takers fairly, difficulty of operationalization of the performance in theses skill, or their low level of importance for theexaminers ; however, it is worth considering the possibility of exploring alternative formats or leveraging computer-based technologies to elevate the overall quality of the test.
Accordingly, the subjectivity involved in rating these productive skills (Bloom, 1998), as
the main reason for removing them, would be eliminated. The addition of these skills is

Page 4 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

raised here due to the fact that in order to be able to say, with a relatively high percentage
of certainty, that the participant is capable of using the language, a test like MSRT shouldbe able to measure the quality of the test taker’s ability to communicate and maintain aconversation or to present and develop his or her ideas through writing, too.
One notable issue with the MSRT test is its incomplete representation of constructvalidity, as there exists a gap between the so-called curriculum and the actual test
(Messick, 1989). The sources necessary for studying prior to the test are similar to thesources of the TOEFL or IELTS tests. However, the nature of the questions differs fundamentally between these tests (Bachman, 1990). It could be claimed that no 100% determined source is available for the MSRT test except those grammar books. While thetest’s structure suggests multiple dimensions, the scoring treats all dimensions equally
without considering item difficulty (Alavi et al., 2021). In order to increase the test discrimination weighted scores should be assigned to the items while we see all sub-skills
are considered the same (Bachman, 2000; Khalilzadeh & Khodi, 2021). Furthermore, it
has been found that the testlet model has the highest ability to explain the factor structure of language proficiency (Alavi et al., 2021); however, the scoring procedure of the
MSRT test does not make use of any of validation models and techniques such as testlet
or bifactor, higher-order models in item response theory (Khodi, Alavi, & Karami, 2021).
Overall, it seems that the concept of academic language proficiency the MSRT examis going to operationalize somehow differs from the general concept of language proficiency defined in the literature because they try to define it in the form of the reading, grammar, and vocabulary skills that are essential for a PhD student to succeed ata university. It’s necessary to say that this type of operationalization of language proficiency is valid locally because typically the format of the tests that are administered at
the national level almost corresponds with the expectations that exist in the context. A
careful examination of the items depicts that in order to be able to answer the questions
not only knowledge about language was needed but also some levels of memorization
were required too; the implication of such a fact is the questionability of the content
validity for the evaluators of the test function. One should remember that generally the
paper-based or electronic tests that seek to find out the language proficiency of test takers also struggle with the fact that they are not fully competent to assess the communicative competence of the participants.
The consistency of measurement is a concern that is connected to test usefulness, generalizability, and reliability (Khodi, Khezerlou, & Sahraei, 2022). Given the significanceof the test results, the developers of the MSRT examination should strive to fulfill theneed for test reliability. As the format of the test implies, the quantity of the items is areflection of the consideration being given to the objectivity of measurement while some
aspects such as uneven distribution of items in subsections, equal weight for items andnot considering negative points for wrong answers are among the existing concerns ofvalidity. When we delved into the analysis of the test’s internal consistency, we discovered that there are unequal levels of reliability across the different sections. One reason
for this disparity is the varying number of items in each section. It seems that insufficient control over the difficulty level of the test items contributes to this discrepancy.
But that’s not all; another factor that adds to the reliability issues of the MSRT test is

Page 5 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

the ambiguity of the evaluation criteria. These factors combined make it challenging toestablish a consistent and reliable assessment.
Optimization and generalizability analysis of the test

When a test is administered, a question arises: Do the test results accurately reflect
the test takers’ true ability, or are there external factors that influence the results,
apart from the test takers’ actual abilities? The answer to such a question could befound in classical test theories but in generalizability analysis of the test results. Usually in the administration of high-stakes and standardized tests the test administration context, the number of items, and the same scoring procedure have kept stablein order to eliminate any source of construct irrelevant variance (Khodi, 2021). This
could be problematic due to two reasons: first, there is no intention to revise andimprove the test quality by the test administrators and developers; second, keeping
these conditions stable without examining the relative and absolute contribution they
have would not be really insightful and helpful in reliability assessment. Particularly,
for the MSRT test, as mentioned earlier, the optimization analysis revealed that anequal number for each subsection is needed and the increase in the total number of
items would result in the improvement similar results were also found previously for
the Konkur examination in Iran.
A generalizability analysis conducted in this study on a sample of 500 examinees
revealed that 78% of the overall variation can be accounted for by individuals, indicating a high level of test reliability. We looked at the possible impact of age and major
on performance. One interesting point about the g-analysis was the high index of thegrammar section. For this part, the lowest possible number of items could be used
and it showed no significant interaction with other variables. The total g-index was
0.78 and it improved to 0.90 once the total number of items increased by 10.

Test dimensionality and dependability of results

The MSRT test format and content highlight that basically the construct of measurement, that was language proficiency here, was considered to be multidimensional by
the test developers which corresponds with the existing literature about the natureof language proficiency tests. Nevertheless, with regards to the other studies thathave been conducted all language sub-skills do not contribute to the communicativecompetence of the learners similarly; thus, a relative and flexible scoring procedure isneeded to be assigned.
Weighted scores to items based on the level of difficulty.
With regard to the MSRT’s format and significance, participants may spend moretime on grammatical structures, vocabulary, and reading than on writing, speaking,and listening exercises (Farhady et al., 1994; Ghorbani, 2012) the test; this is due tothe underestimation of some language skills and has been accentuated in IRT analysisof the results and necessitates a fundamental change in the structure of the test. For
instance, the weight dedicated to each subsection should be relative and the communicative ability should be the ultimate goal of items.

Page 6 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

The effects of this exam touch the entire society, not only the PhD students andtheir families, who also place great importance on it. For instance, some language
skills whose acquisition is easier will be more popular and the important aspect oflanguage learning that is communicative ability will be under-values.
Test bias and fairness

After carefully considering and conducting an Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis,
it was discovered that certain items in the study exhibit unequal functioning for participants based on factors such as gender, major, and age. These differences and biases
can be explained. For instance, grammar items were found to favor male participants,
indicating a disparity in memorization abilities where female learners benefit less. Whensuch biases occur, it indicates differential item functioning, which should be addressedby test developers as it significantly impacts test fairness. Furthermore, it was observedthat the topics utilized in the listening and reading sections were not neutral, leading tounequal advantages for different groups. To ensure fairness, it is crucial to select topics that are both unbiased and inclusive, promoting equal performance among all participants. One possible solution is to conduct a pilot study during the test’s development
phase, allowing developers to identify and eliminate items that exhibit differential item
functioning.
However, it is unrealistic to completely eliminate a certain number of items since itwould disrupt the test’s integrity. Instead, an alternate suggestion is to incorporate standard topics commonly used in tests like IELTS and TOEFL, which are known for theirfairness and universality. Addressing differential item functioning and ensuring fairness
in test administration can be achieved through careful item selection, topic neutrality,
and the adoption of established standards in test development. These measures will help
create an equitable testing environment for all participants (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Differential item functioning

Page 7 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

Test difficulty and discrimination

Upon examining the difficulty of items using IRT theory, it was discovered that certain
items have an item difficulty index that deviates significantly from the average language
proficiency level of the participants. Specifically, it was observed that the majority ofgrammar items were deemed easy for participants, irrespective of their gender, major,
or age. In contrast, the majority of items in the listening section were found to be excessively challenging, resulting in a high number of unanswered questions. The ease of thegrammar items can be attributed to the fact that all participants have studied grammar extensively. However, the difficulty of the Listening section arises from the lack of
preparation available to participants, particularly in terms of listening skills. The listening tracks used in the test are sourced from standard international exams, which are
known to be challenging for local participants who have not undergone specific preparation courses for such exams. It is important to note that the difficulty level of the local
test, the MSRT, cannot be directly compared to other internationally recognized exams
due to their distinct objectives. The primary goal of the local test is to evaluate whether
prospective undergraduate and postgraduate students can effectively utilize current
English-language resources and perform well in academic settings. On the other hand,international tests not only assess learners’ readiness for functioning in academic settings but also evaluate their compatibility with the society they will be a part of if they
are English speakers. Consequently, international tests are primarily designed to assessoverall language proficiency rather than focusing on specific language aspects. Analysis
reveals that 17% of the items were considered very easy, while 20% were deemed very
difficult. This indicates that only 63% of the test items effectively measure the learners’abilities, which falls short of an optimal level for reliable results analysis. The examination of item difficulty using IRT theory highlighted discrepancies in the test’s composition. While the grammar section proved to be relatively easy for participants, theListening section posed significant challenges due to limited preparation resources.
Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure the accuracy and validity of the test results
for a comprehensive analysis.
Usefulness and practicality, authenticity, and interactivity

A test is created and administered for its usefulness, which is its most important attribute (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). The link between the resources that will be needed forthe test’s design, development, and usage, and the resources that will be available forthese activities, is referred to as practicality (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p. 39). Speaking
and writing, which are the two most important abilities, are not examined in the MSRT
test; therefore, the test is already unable to gauge the participants’ productive abilities.
Additionally, there is significant doubt regarding the test’s outcomes. There will be practical restrictions taking into account time allotment for administering and scoring, thequalifications and availabilities of test administrators and scorers, and financial considerations even if the speaking and writing sections, which are the most problematic inconstructing validity, are tested using a computer.
The short scoring time in this case is the biggest issue that both choices share. The
scoring criteria for the speaking and writing portions will need to be discussed in great
detail in order for the scorers to evaluate the exam fairly and impartially. However, thePage 8 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

MSRT score report must be released within 3 to 4 days following the exam in order for
university admissions to proceed as planned. As a result, the MSRT exam is not very
useful or practical and does not always address the issues with the test qualities mentioned. But it is not impossible either. By creating short-answer questions in the speech
and writing portions utilizing recording equipment or computers, the MSRT test canaddress the poor practicality issue. The validity of the test will also be increased by having speaking and writing portions.
The degree of correlation between a test and real language usage tasks is known as
authenticity (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, pp. 23–25). According to Morrow (2012), the test
items should contain real-life texts from the perspective of authenticity. As was alreadystated, speaking and writing abilities are never evaluated in the examination. Because ofthis, the MSRT examination’s authenticity is poor and it cannot deal with the issue.
The test items should also trigger the unique test-takers’ qualities, such as language
proficiency, metacognitive methods, and topical knowledge, for higher interactivity(Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p. 25). The MSRT exam’s interactivity is in doubt because
basic memorization may be particularly pertinent. The MSRT exam has low interactivity
since it only partially uses the learner’s language skills and because little metacognitive
thinking and topical knowledge are demanded.

Conclusion
MSRT acknowledges the strategic arrangement of provided materials and comprehensive coverage of resource books. Despite its deconstructive aspect, the impact on teaching and learning can be restored through the integration of new source materials andrevised priorities. The challenges related to the exclusion of writing and speaking skills
can be addressed by introducing additional information into teaching resources andredesigning the exam. A new test format can also address the issue of poor practicality. Enhancing reliability can be achieved by incorporating clear assessment criteria. To
ensure authenticity and interactivity, it is important to include commonly used grammarin everyday discourse. The speaking and writing sections of the exam should be designed
using computer-based tools and/or recordings to uphold test validity. Although there
may be some irrelevant variance, incorporating weighted scores and considering participants’ educational backgrounds can help reduce it. Once there is consensus on theconstruct being tested and the utilization of new technology in the assessment process,the remaining issues can be addressed.
The mismatch between the nature of test items and the item format is a key reason forsome participants’ failure. The comprehensive evaluation of MSRT reveals that despite
contextual and content alignment, the test’s nature does not effectively predict participants’ actual language proficiency as it lacks the inclusion of crucial language abilities.
Encouragingly, there is a sufficient body of research reviewing MSRT and providing
suggestions for improvement, considering its social and long-term impacts on Iraniansociety. The MSRT exam has drawbacks that compromise its effectiveness. It lacks construct validity by excluding speaking and writing skills, raising concerns about accurately
assessing communication abilities. Content validity is also an issue as some items prioritize memorization over communication competence. Indirect assessment methods
hinder reflecting true competence. Reliability problems arise from uneven question

Page 9 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

quantity, equal weight for incorrect options, and skill interference. These limitations
undermine validity, reliability, and generalizability.
To address these drawbacks, include speaking and writing sections to assess communication abilities accurately. Improve content validity by covering comprehensive language skills.
Use direct assessment methods for accurate measurement. Enhance test design by balancing questions and weighting item difficulty. Provide comprehensive training for raters.
Involve stakeholders and consider social validity to enhance practicality and relevance.
Lastly, institutions should establish more inclusive admission practices that consider students’ performance on the MSRT foreign language examination. Overall, this reconsideration will benefit the educational system and enhance long-term learning motivation.
To mention some of the challenges and propose potential solutions it can be stated thatone significant issue is the unequal importance assigned to different items and subsections within the exams. This disparity may lead to an undervaluation of essential aspects
such as communicative ability while placing excessive emphasis on areas like grammar,
which candidates find relatively easier. To address this, we recommend implementing ascoring procedure that dynamically reflects the goals of the exam. This approach would
grant greater significance and more diverse assessment methods for measuring communication skills, aligning the evaluation process with the exam’s intended objectives.
Another concern lies in the lack of a clear, transparent explanation of the exam’s goals. Many
students participate in the exam solely with the aim of meeting the minimum cutoff score,
without fully comprehending the broader language proficiency development that the examshould foster. To tackle this issue, we propose integrating additional productive skills, like writing or speaking, into the test. By doing so, we can transform the exam into a comprehensive
tool that promotes genuine learning rather than rote memorization, ultimately yielding morepositive outcomes. Furthermore, the problem of question repetition needs to be addressed.
Currently, a significant percentage of items are repeated from previous exams, compromising
the authenticity and fairness of the assessment process. To rectify this, it is crucial to introduce a wider range of questions and ensure rigorous validation and development of test materials. Drawing inspiration from established systems such as IELTS or TOEFL, we can enhance
the quality and diversity of questions while adhering to robust validation practices. The timing
and administration of the exam pose additional concerns. In some language centers, the inadequate presentation of sound during the listening section can undermine candidates’ ability todemonstrate their language skills effectively. Moreover, the excessive number of items in theexam necessitates a reduction. Conducting a comprehensive item analysis and power analysis
will help determine the optimal number of items for each subsection. Additionally, the correlation between different subsections reveals issues with the exam’s structure and dimensionality, calling for a thorough reassessment and restructuring.
In conclusion, addressing the concerns related to the exam’s fairness, validity, constructvalue, content, administration, and structure is vital to ensure a robust and accurate assessment of language proficiency. By implementing the proposed solutions, we can create anexam that provides reliable and comprehensive insights into candidates’ abilities and growth.
Abbreviations
MSRT	Mistry of Science, Research and Technology
MCHE	Ministry of Culture and Higher Education
TOLIMO	Test of Language by the Iranian Measurement Organization

Page 10 of 11

Khodi et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:4

Acknowledgements
To all those editors who read and revised the papers.
Authors’ contributions
The authors made the same contribution. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
We received no funding.
Availability of data and materials
The data will be available to third parties upon request and justification.

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 18 October 2023 Accepted: 5 December 2023

References
Alavi, S. M., Karami, H., & Khodi, A. (2021). Examination of factorial structure of Iranian English language proficiency test: An IRT
analysis of Konkur examination. In Current Psychology, 42(10), 8097–8111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12144-​021-​01922-1
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol.
1). London: Oxford University Press
Bloom, P., & Markson, L. (1998). Capacities underlying word learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(2), 67–73.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2016). Validity theory: Reform policies, accountability testing, and consequences. Language Testing,33(4), 453–472.
Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills: From theory to practice. SAMT Publications.
Ghahraki, S., Tavakoli, M., & Ketabi, S. (2022). Applying a two-parameter item response model to explore the psychometricproperties: the case of the ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) high-stakes English Language
Proficiency test. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 14(29), 1–26.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2012). Controversy over abolishing Iranian university entrance examination", Asian Education and Development Studies. 1(2), 139–152. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​20463​16121​12401​15
Ghorbani, M. R., Abbassi, H., & Razali, A. B. M. (2021). Exploring the Shortcomings of the Iranian MSRT English Proficiency
Test. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(S3), 115–132
Heaton, J. (1975). Writing language tests. Longman.
Heshmatifar, Z., Zareian, G. R., & Davoudi, M. (2018). A qualitative investigation of factors affecting a preparation course for
MSRT: a grounded-theory. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 8(1), 27–56.
Jalalizadeh, M., Delavar, A., Farokhi, N., & Askari, M. (2019). Comparison of ANGOF-based IRT method and Bookmark
method for standard Setting of MSRT language test. Research in Teaching, 7(4), 69–49.
Karami, H., & Khodi, A. (2021). Differential Item Functioning and test performance: a comparison between the Raschmodel, Logistic Regression and Mantel-Haenszel. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 10(4), 842–853.
Khalilzadeh, S., & Khodi, A. (2021). Teachers’ personality traits and students’ motivation: a structural equation modeling
analysis. Current Psychology, 40(4), 1635–1650.
Khodi, A. (2021). The affectability of writing assessment scores: a G-theory analysis of rater, task, and scoring method
contribution. Language Testing in Asia, 11(1), 30.
Khodi, A., Alavi, S.M. & Karami, H. (2021). Test review of Iranian university entrance exam: English Konkur examination.
Lang Test Asia, 11, 14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468Khodi, A., Khezerlou, H., & Sahraei, H. (2022). Dependability and utility of using e-portfolios in assessing EFL learners’
speaking proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–23
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests: A teacher’s book. Bristol: Longmans, Green and Company
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1012.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11
Messick, S. J. (2013). Alternative modes of assessment, uniform standards of validity. In Beyond multiple choice. Psychology Press. pp. 59–74.
Morrow, K. (2012). Communicative language testing. The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. 140
Rashvand Semiyari, S., & Ahangari, S. (2022). Examining differential item functioning (DIF) for Iranian EFL test takers withdifferent fields of study. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 10(1), 169–190.
Tadayon, F., & Khodi, A. (2017). Empowerment of refugees by language: Can ESL learners affect the target culture? TESLCanada Journal, 33(10), 129–137
Zabihi, R., Mehrani-Rad, M., & Khodi, A. (2019). Assessment of authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative written task
performances: contributions of voice components to text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 331–355.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 11 of 11