Rating Scale Validation: An MDA Approach



The previous chapter details a rating scale validation study in a quantitative approach. Instead of taking a bird’s-eye view from a statistical perspective, this chapter continues to validate the revised rating scale in a microscopic manner. In real practice, multimodal discourse analysis was deployed to further validate the rating scale from the perspective of associating and aligning the randomly selected candidates’ performance in nonverbal delivery with the subscores they were assigned by teacher and peer raters and the corresponding descriptors of the rating scale. It is anticipated that this qualitative validation study will further serve as a triangulation of examining the construct validity of the rating scale, particularly with a view to validating the “unconventional” dimension of Nonverbal Delivery.


Group Discussion Head Movement Proficiency Level Ideational Meaning Travel Destination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Hood, S.E. 2007. Gesture and meaning making in face-to-face teaching. Paper Presented at the Semiotic Margins Conference, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  2. Hood, S.E. 2011. Body language in face-to-face teaching: A focus on textual and interpersonal meaning. In Semiotic margins: Meanings in multimodalities, ed. Dreyfus, S, S. Hood and S. Stenglin, 31–52. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  3. Lim, F.V. 2011. A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis approach to pedagogic discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  4. Martinec, R. 2000. Types of processes in action. Semiotica 130(3): 243–268.Google Scholar
  5. Martinec, R. 2001. Interpersonal resources in action. Semiotica 135(1): 117–145.Google Scholar
  6. Martinec, R. 2004. Gestures that co-occur with speech as a systematic resource: The realisation of experiential meanings in indexes. Social Semiotics 14(2): 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. White, S. 1989. Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society 18: 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Young, R.F., and J. Lee. 2004. Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(3): 380–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of English Language and CultureGuangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations