The document presents research on revising the cut scores that map TOEFL iBT test scores to levels within the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The research aimed to show that the revised cut scores are reasonable and do not negatively impact admissions decisions. Researchers investigated university admission requirements, reviewed literature on mapping test scores to CEFR levels, analyzed test score and GPA data from previous studies, and found support that the revised cut scores better reflect current practice and would not likely result in admitting students without sufficient English skills. The conclusion advocates for periodically reviewing and revising score mappings to meet changing needs.

1. The Association Between TOEFL iBT®
Test Scores and the Common
European Framework of Reference
(CEFR) Levels
Spiros Papageorgiou
Richard J. Tannenbaum
Brent Bridgeman
Yeonsuk Cho

2. Table of Contents
Research
Objectives
Contains rationale for
the revision of CEFR
cut score & claims
01
Theoretical
Framework
Covers a brief
overview of the CEFR
and the process of
mapping test scores
to its levels
02
Research
Design
How the researcher
conduct the study
03
Findings
Presents the evidence
supporting the claims
04

3. Research
Objective

4. The research memorandum
presents the rationale for the
revision of the CEFR cut
scores and offer validity
evidence supporting claims
related to the cut scores

5. Claims related to the
interferences
Claim 1 (reasonableness
of the cut scores)
The revised CEFR cut scores are
reasonable for making decisions
about admission into higher
education.
Claim 2 (impact of the
cut scores)
The revised CEFR cut scores do
not negatively impact
admissions decisions due to
classification errors.

6. Theoretical
Framework

7. Brief overview of the CEFR & Process
of Mapping Test Scores to Its Levels
Mapping Test
Scores to the CEFR
Mapping TOEFL iBT
Test Scores to the
CEFR
Alignment of the
Content of the
TOEFL iBT Test to
the CEFR Levels

8. Research
Design
Argument-based approach (Kane,
2006, 2013) through the use of
external, non-assessment criteria
(Kane, 2001)

9. Findings

10. Investigating the Reasonableness
of the Revised Cut Scores
● Investigation of university admission requirements for TOEFL iBT test scores in
English speaking countries
● Review on admission web-pages of 155 top ranked universities (based on the
2014 – 2015 Times Higher Education World University Rankings)
● CEFR B2 level descriptors are relevant as language objectives for further &
higher education
● Comparing the revised cut score range mapped to the B2 level to the
recommended cut scores
● The revised TOEFL iBT test score range for B2 seems to better capture the
current practice in university entry requirements among the surveyed
institutions  revised CEFR cut scores are reasonable

11. ● Investigating the impact by utilizing data from two previous studies
○ Cho & Bridgeman (2012) - 2,594 international students’
TOEFL iBT test scores & cumulative GPA
○ Bridgeman et al. (in press) – TOEFL iBT test scores & overall
GPA from first 3 terms of 787 undergraduate international
students
● The studies show that TOEFL iBT test scores have a meaningful
relationship with academic performance as indicated by the GPA.
● Using the revised score range for CEFR Level B2 will not likely result
in admitting university students who do not have sufficient English-
language skills to cope with instructional demands in the English
language.
Investigating the Impact of
the Revised Cut Scores

12. Conclusion
Education professionals and researchers advocate adaptation
of the CEFR to meet local needs because the CEFR is a
dynamic, rather than fixed, framework. Consequently, it is
appropriate to periodically review and reconsider the
relationship between test scores and the CEFR in light of
changes in decision makers’ needs and changing assessment
contexts, as we demonstrate in this research memorandum
because “cut scores are constructed, not found” (Zieky,
2001, p. 45).

13. CREDITS: This presentation template was created by
Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon, infographics &
images by Freepik and illustrations by Stories
Thanks!
Does anyone have any questions?
addyouremail@freepik.com
+91 620 421 838
yourcompany.com
Please keep this slide for attribution