A REASSESSMENT OF ERROR-COUNT

Research in the field of error-eount evaluation of EFL writing has
not had a history of results consistently successful enough to establish
the method as a full-fledged alternative to analytic or general
impression marking. In this article it is suggested that this record is not
so much due to an inherent weakness of error-count evaluation as
such, but rather to the lack of a theoretical foundation in the methods
used to date.
In order to make this point, extensive reference is made to the Dutch
CITO writing proficiency test (CITO, 1984) and to a related CITO
study, Meise and Verstralen (1986). Data from the latter are
marshalled by the present author in making his case in support of
error-count evaluation. The described evaluation procedure is used to
determine the English language writing skills of test subjects, and not
to correct student essays.