This argument-based validation research examines the validity of score interpretations on computer-based graphic-prompt writing (GPW) tasks, centering on the explanation inference. The GPW tasks, designed for English placement testing, measure examinees’ ability to incorporate visual graphic information into their writing. Over 100 ESL students, studying at a public university in the United States, completed GPW tasks and two online questionnaires on graph familiarity (Xi, 2005) and computer mode preference (Lee, 2004) and submitted their standardized English writing test scores. A Pearson product-moment correlation, corrected for attenuation, revealed scores on the GPW tasks and the standardized writing tests had a moderately strong positive relationship (r_T1T2 = .50). Multiple linear regression and follow-up correlation analyses showed that GPW task scores were attributed to examinees’ academic writing ability and carried weak, but significant, positive relations to three predictors of graph familiarity (examinees’ experience with and preference for graphs, and graph reading ability). The findings suggest the GPW tasks and the standardized English writing tests assessed different dimensions of the same underlying construct (academic writing ability), and the three predictors of graph familiarity served as sources of construct-irrelevant variance. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings, as well as methodological limitations, are discussed.

这项基于论证的验证研究以解释推理为中心，研究了分数解释在基于计算机的图形提示写作（GPW）任务中的有效性。GPW任务是为英语入学考试而设计的，旨在衡量考生将视觉图形信息纳入其笔试的能力。超过100名在美国公立大学学习的ESL学生完成了GPW任务，并完成了两张有关图形熟悉度（Xi，2005年）和计算机模式偏好（Lee，2004年）的在线问卷，并提交了标准化的英语写作测试成绩。经过校正的衰减后的皮尔逊乘积矩相关性揭示了GPW任务的分数，而标准化的写作测试则具有中等程度的正相关（r _T1T2 = .50）。多元线性回归和后续相关分析表明，GPW任务分数归因于应试者的学术写作能力，并且与图熟悉度的三个预测因子之间存在弱但显着的正相关关系（检查者对图的了解和偏好以及图的阅读）能力）。研究结果表明，GPW任务和标准化的英语写作测试评估了同一基础结构的不同维度（学术写作能力），并且图熟悉度的三个预测因素是与结构无关的差异的来源。讨论结果的理论和实践意义，以及方法上的局限性。