Analyzing the Alignment of Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test Level 3 Reading Items with HSK Standards: A Comprehensive Vocabulary and Thematic Evaluation

Analyzing the Alignment of Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test Level 3 Reading Items with HSK Standards: A Comprehensive Vocabulary and Thematic Evaluation | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Analyzing the Alignment of Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test Level 3 Reading Items with HSK Standards: A Comprehensive Vocabulary and Thematic Evaluation Qiao-Yu Cai This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850665/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Next to the number of Japanese learners studying English, Japanese learners of Chinese are the second largest group, especially in higher education. Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (日本中国語検定, Chuken) has played a role in examining Japanese learners of Chinese language proficiency for over 40 years. This study focuses on analyzing the reading comprehension section of the Chuken for Level 3 over the past three years, aiming to evaluate whether the test items align with the specified proficiency criteria and the HSK (Hànyǔ Shuǐpíng Kǎoshì) equivalence table. The analysis examines the vocabulary used in the test, comparing it against the guidelines set by Japan’s official test administrators and the HSK framework. The reading passages were categorized based on thematic areas from the official curriculum, ensuring they reflect the cognitive and language proficiency targets outlined for Level 3. The results show that the vocabulary used in the reading comprehension tests covers approximately 70–80% of the basic level vocabulary, with advanced vocabulary making up around 6–14%, consistent with the HSK Levels 4 to 5. The passages predominantly center on daily life scenarios, which supports the assessment that the test successfully measures the candidate's ability to handle typical conversational and reading situations in Chinese. These findings confirm that the skills evaluated through the Chuken Level 3 correspond to the official ability descriptors, making it a reliable indicator of language competence for learners aiming to engage in basic to intermediate Chinese language communication. Social science/Education Social science/Language and linguistics Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (Chuken) Japanese learners of Chinese HSK Chinese reading comprehension Figures Figure 1 Introduction In Japan, interest in learning Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) has grown steadily in recent years, building on a long history of cultural and linguistic ties between Japan and China. Chinese is now one of the most popular foreign languages among Japanese university students, second only to English (Zhao, 2024 ). Surveys of Japanese undergraduates indicate a range of motivations for studying Chinese, including integrative motives (e.g. cultural interest and personal enrichment), instrumental motives (career or academic advantages), genuine interest in China and the Chinese language, encouragement from peers or mentors (Cai, 2022 ), and even the perceived linguistic similarity of Chinese to Japanese (Zhao, 2024 ). These findings suggest that Japanese learners of Chinese (L2) are driven by a combination of personal interest and practical goals, which may differ in emphasis from learner motivations in other countries. To validate and support this surge in Chinese learning, several Chinese proficiency tests are available in Japan. Learners can take international examinations such as China’s Hànyǔ Shuǐpíng Kǎoshì (HSK) or Taiwan’s Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language (TOCFL), as well as domestically developed tests. A notable example of the latter is the Test of Communicative Chinese (TECC/ 中国語コミュニケーション能力検定), introduced in 1998, which is patterned after the TOEIC and assesses daily conversational skills with level distinctions by scores (Japan Business Communication Association, 2025 ). Another most prominent credential for Japanese Chinese learners is the Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (日本中国語検定, commonly known as Chuken), first established in 1981 (The Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan, 2007 ). Over the past four decades, the Chuken has become the most authoritative and widely taken Chinese language exam in Japan (Jia, 2006 ; Wang, 2013 ; Wang, 2018 ). It is endorsed by many universities and companies, serving as an important benchmark for academic admissions and employment requiring Chinese proficiency (Jia, 2006 ; Wang, 2013 ; Wang, 2018 ). In fact, it is often said in Japan that instead of stating how long one has studied Chinese, it is more telling to state which Chuken level one has passed (Wang, 2017 ), underscoring the exam’s prestige and perceived rigor. The Chuken differs in structure and focus from other standardized Chinese tests, reflecting the specific context of Japanese learners. The exam is offered three times annually and is explicitly designed for native Japanese speakers who are learning Chinese. In addition to evaluating the standard four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), the Chuken places a special emphasis on translation between Japanese and Chinese. This emphasis stems from the viewpoint that true proficiency for these learners includes the ability to convert between the two languages with accuracy and cultural nuance. Such a focus on bidirectional translation is not commonly found in HSK or TOCFL, making the Chuken a uniquely tailored assessment for the Japanese context. The popularity of the Chuken, combined with its role in hiring practices and academia, means that it carries significant weight in Japanese Chinese language education. This local trend in Japan mirrors a broader global surge in Chinese language learning. Worldwide, Chinese has emerged as one of the fastest-growing second languages. By 2020, over 70 countries – including Japan – had incorporated Chinese language education into their national curricula, and an estimated 25 million people outside of China were actively learning Chinese as a foreign language (Language Magazine, 2021 ). The expanding global enthusiasm for Chinese has been accompanied by a rise in Chinese proficiency testing internationally. The HSK, for example, has become a high-stakes exam taken by millions of learners around the world, and its growing influence on learning behavior is well documented (Kong & Zhang, 2024 ). A recent large-scale study of 1,616 Chinese-as-a-second-language students from 25 different mother-tongue backgrounds found that the HSK exerted significant washback effects on both how students learn and their learning outcomes, with generally positive impacts on motivation (Kong & Zhang, 2024 ). This underscores that standardized tests can shape learners’ goals and study strategies, and highlights the importance of ensuring these tests are well-aligned with pedagogical objectives and proficiency standards. Within this global context, the case of Japan stands out due to shifting educational and geopolitical dynamics. In recent years, increasing numbers of Japanese students have chosen to pursue Chinese language study not in Mainland China but in Taiwan. This trend has been attributed in part to political factors – a tightening of Sino-Japanese relations and a concurrently warmer attitude in Japan toward Taiwan – as well as Taiwan’s active recruitment of international students (Nojima, 2021 ). Notably, the number of Japanese studying abroad in Taiwan rose by nearly 10% in 2018 alone (Nojima, 2021 ). Many of these students use their Chuken certification as proof of Chinese proficiency when applying to Taiwanese universities. Taiwanese institutions often require a certain level of Chinese proficiency for admission, typically a TOCFL level of at least A2 (Basic) for undergraduate programs. According to an officially recognized comparison table, this corresponds to Level 3 of the Chuken for Japan’s Chinese proficiency test (Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency–Huayu (SC-TOP), 2023). Thus, a Chuken Level 3 certificate has become a de facto minimum credential for Japanese students seeking higher education opportunities in Taiwan. However, despite an official alignment framework that maps Chuken levels to TOCFL and HSK standards (Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency–Huayu, 2025), there is a conspicuous lack of independent scholarly research examining the Chuken’s content and its equivalence to these international benchmarks. The paucity of research on the Chuken represents a significant gap in the literature on Chinese language assessment. While Japanese learners constitute one of the largest non-native Chinese learner groups, empirical studies focusing on their proficiency outcomes and testing experience remain limited. The absence of detailed analyses of the Chuken has practical consequences: educators in Taiwan report difficulty in gauging the actual Chinese competency of incoming Japanese students solely from their Chuken results, and instructors in Japan (including many from Taiwan) have little guidance on how to help students prepare for an exam whose design and expectations have not been thoroughly critiqued in academic forums. Except for a few comparative studies (e.g., Wang’s ( 2017 ) analysis comparing Chuken Level 3 with HSK Level 4), little is known about whether the Chuken’s test content truly reflects the proficiency levels it purports to measure. Questions remain as to whether the vocabulary and reading passages in the Chuken Level 3, for instance, align with the basic-to-intermediate level (somewhere between CEFR A2 and B1) that it is intended to represent. Addressing these questions is crucial for validating the test and ensuring that score users (students, teachers, and institutions) can interpret Chuken results accurately in both national and international contexts. In light of this gap, the present study aims to analyze the Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (Chuken) Level 3 exam in depth, focusing on its reading section over the past three years. By examining the vocabulary distribution and thematic content of recent Level 3 reading comprehension passages, this study evaluates whether the test aligns with its stated proficiency descriptors and with equivalent levels in the HSK framework. Through this empirical analysis, we seek to determine if the Chuken Level 3 provides a reliable and valid measure of intermediate Chinese proficiency for Japanese learners. The findings are expected to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the Chuken, offer insights into the test’s alignment with international standards, and inform Chinese language educators and policymakers in better supporting the learning outcomes of Japanese L2 Chinese learners. Ultimately, this introduction of evidence-based scrutiny to the Chuken will contribute to the broader discourse on Chinese language assessment in an era of expanding global Chinese learning, ensuring that the tools used to measure proficiency are held to rigorous international standards. Literature Review Chinese Language Learning in Japan and the Role of Proficiency Tests China’s rising global influence has led to a boom in Chinese language learning worldwide (Li & Tsung, 2025 ), and Japan is no exception. Chinese is now among the most popular foreign languages studied by Japanese learners (second only to English in higher education) as historical and economic ties between Japan and China fuel interest in Chinese proficiency (Cai, 2022 ; Zhu, 2014 ). In response, several standardized Chinese proficiency tests are available to Japanese learners. Notably, two major international exams – China’s Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) and Taiwan’s Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language (TOCFL) – have been introduced in Japan, alongside domestically developed tests. In 1998, Japan launched the Test of Chinese Communication (TECC), an exam modeled after the TOEIC focusing on daily conversational skills with deciding level distinctions by scores. More prominently, since 1981 Japan has hosted its own Chinese Proficiency Test known as Chuken, which has become the most authoritative Chinese language exam in Japan. Administered thrice annually by the Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency, the Chuken caters specifically to Japanese native speakers and is widely recognized by Japanese universities and employers. As Wang ( 2017 ) observed, such is the test’s prestige that “rather than telling others how long you’ve studied Chinese, it is better to say you passed a certain level of the Chuken.” This saying underlines how passing Chuken has become a proxy for one’s Chinese ability in Japan, emphasizing the high stakes and influence of this exam on learners’ goals and self-perception. Features of the Chuken The Chuken is a leveled exam with a clear hierarchy of proficiency bands, from the beginner “Pre-4th Level” up to the advanced 1st Level. Each level comes with official descriptors of expected skills and knowledge, similar in spirit to other language proficiency scales. However, a distinctive feature of Chuken – setting it apart from HSK, TOCFL, and other international Chinese tests – is its emphasis on translation ability between Japanese and Chinese. While most language tests focus on the four primary skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), the Chuken’s design “particularly stresses translation” as a core component of proficiency. The test developers argue that a learner’s capacity to elegantly convert meaning between the native language (Japanese) and the target language (Chinese) is directly linked to true communicative competence. As a result, translation tasks (both Japanese-to-Chinese and Chinese-to-Japanese) are included from the intermediate levels onward, on the premise that effective bilingual communication requires mastery of bidirectional translation. This focus aligns with the practical needs of many Japanese learners who may use Chinese in contexts requiring constant language mediation. However, it also means the Chuken assesses a somewhat broader construct – incorporating cross-linguistic mediation skills – compared to proficiency tests like HSK or TOCFL that assess only target-language skills. This raises important considerations when comparing Chuken results with those of other Chinese tests or frameworks, as the inclusion of translation could inflate or obscure certain abilities (for example, a learner might excel in translation due to familiarity with set phrases, rather than overall Chinese fluency). The Chuken’s official guidelines outline the progression of translation competence: at 4th Level, examinees should handle simple sentence-by-sentence translation, by 3rd Level they translate basic compound sentences, and at 2nd Level and above they tackle more complex passages with elements of interpretation. By the highest level (Level 1), candidates are expected to perform sophisticated translations and even oral interpretation of speeches and meetings. These requirements reflect the exam’s unique orientation toward producing bilingual experts, which has implications for its content validity and the interpretation of its certification. Another aspect of Chuken’s design is the specification of vocabulary and study hours for each level. The test syllabus provides reference benchmarks for the lower levels (The Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan, 2007 ): for example, Level 3 (the focus of the present study) is associated with a vocabulary size of roughly 1,000–2,000 Chinese words and about 200–300 hours of Chinese study. Descriptors for Level 3 indicate that learners should have command of common everyday words and fundamental grammar, be able to carry out simple daily conversations, read and write basic Chinese texts, and possess corresponding listening skills. In other words, Chuken Level 3 is intended to represent a low-intermediate competency in Chinese, sufficient for routine communication. This official profile of required vocabulary and skills provides a basis against which the actual test content can be evaluated. A key question – and one motivating this research – is whether the Chuken Level 3 exam content truly reflects these stated proficiency targets. Answering this involves examining the test’s reading passages and items to see if they align with the expected difficulty (vocabulary level, themes, and cognitive demands) for a learner who knows ~ 1500 words and has moderate training in Chinese. It is crucial that the test’s content validity holds up; otherwise, passing the exam might not guarantee the abilities it purports to certify. Alignment with International Proficiency Frameworks (HSK, TOCFL, CEFR) In language assessment, situating a test within a broader proficiency framework helps in interpreting what a given test level means in real-world terms. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), for instance, is a widely adopted scale that standardizes language proficiency levels from A1 (beginner) through C2 (mastery). Both the HSK and TOCFL have made efforts to map their levels onto CEFR categories, facilitating international recognition of their certificates. Officially, when the HSK was revamped into a 6-level format (HSK 1–6) in 2010, the administering body (Hanban) asserted a one-to-one correspondence with CEFR levels A1–C2 (Chinese Testing International Co., Ltd., 2018). In practice, however, this alignment has been debated. Independent evaluations by language teaching associations in Europe found that HSK Level 6 (advanced) was equivalent only to about CEFR B2 or C1, rather than C2 as claimed, with similar downward adjustments for other HSK levels (Bellassen, 2011 ; Fachverband Chinesisch e.V., 2010). This discrepancy suggests that the HSK’s difficulty was somewhat overestimated in the initial alignment, highlighting the importance of empirical validation rather than relying solely on test developers’ claims. TOCFL, on its part, uses levels named A1 to C2 explicitly modeled on CEFR, and thus alignment is more straightforward by design. Where does Japan’s Chuken fit into these international standards? The question is complex, given Chuken’s translation component and its tailored-for-Japanese-learners scope. Nonetheless, efforts have been made to relate Chuken levels to other frameworks. Taiwan’s Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency (SC-TOP) has published an equivalency table mapping Chuken levels to TOCFL levels (and by extension to CEFR). According to this mapping (The Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu (SC-TOP), 2023 ), Chuken Level 3 corresponds approximately to somewhere between TOCFL Basic (A2) and Intermediate (B1), leaning closer to B. In CEFR terms, a Chuken Level 3 holder is intended to be at the cusp between elementary and intermediate proficiency – able to handle everyday topics and some unpredictable situations in Chinese, though not yet fully independent in complex communication. Chuken Level 4, by comparison, aligns with a high A1/low A2 ability, and Level 2 aligns just below B2 upper-intermediate, while the highest Level 1 maps around the C1–C2 range (advanced fluency). This mapping suggests that the intervals between Chuken levels are not uniform: each Chuken level spans a different breadth of ability. Indeed, below the pre-1 level, each Chuken step appears to cover roughly two TOCFL/CEFR sublevels (e.g. Level 3 spans A2 to B1), whereas the jump from Pre-1 to Level 1 is relatively smaller (both being in the advanced range). Such uneven scaling may reflect the particular difficulties Japanese learners face at different stages, or simply be an artifact of how the exams were historically constructed. It raises the issue of whether the Chuken Level 3 standard might be too broad or ill-defined, straddling two CEFR levels. Verifying the actual content and difficulty of the Level 3 test can shed light on whether it truly fits the “mid-B1” target or if it skews more basic or more advanced. In addition to level mapping, discrepancies in required vocabulary and study time emerge when comparing Chuken to international benchmarks. For instance, TOCFL’s Intermediate (B1) level expects a learner to command approximately 2,500 words, whereas Chuken Level 3 officially requires only 1,000–2,000 words. Likewise, the recommended instruction hours for reaching B1 in a non-Chinese environment are around 720–960 hours according to Taiwan’s guidelines, but Chuken Level 3’s guideline is merely 200–300 hours. These are striking gaps: Chuken Level 3 demands a substantially smaller vocabulary and much less study time than what TOCFL (and many educators) would consider necessary for an intermediate level. There are a few possible interpretations. One optimistic interpretation is that Japanese learners can indeed attain functional Chinese proficiency more rapidly, owing to their familiarity with Chinese characters (kanji) and related vocabulary. Research on literacy transfer supports the idea that knowing kanji gives Japanese learners a head start in recognizing Hanzi and learning Chinese words, at least in reading (Yu, 2024 ). This L1 advantage could mean that a Japanese learner with 1,500 Chinese words might comprehend texts at a level that would require 2,500 words for a non-kanji background learner. On the other hand, a more critical interpretation is that Chuken’s standards might be less rigorous, and a Level 3 certificate might not truly represent the same proficiency as a B1 certificate elsewhere. The fact that many Chuken Level 3 holders still struggle when transitioning to programs that expect B1 competency (as noted by instructors in Taiwan) suggests caution. Indeed, the lack of independent research on Chuken’s alignment has been pointed out as a problem. Despite the existence of the official equivalence table, “literature on Chuken is scarce” and this gap leaves teachers uncertain about Chuken-certified students’ actual capabilities. For example, Taiwanese universities increasingly receive Japanese students who submit Chuken credentials for admission, yet instructors have little empirical guidance on how a Chuken Level 3 compares to the TOCFL levels they are more accustomed to. This mismatch could affect placement decisions and instructional support for those students. Therefore, there is a clear need to scrutinize Chuken Level 3 in terms of its content and alignment with the stated proficiency frameworks. Washback and Learner Motivation in Chinese Proficiency Testing Beyond content alignment, another critical dimension of test evaluation is washback – the impact that tests have on teaching and learning. High-stakes language tests like the HSK, TOCFL, and Chuken can significantly shape learners’ study behaviors, motivation, and even the curriculum in preparatory courses. A recent large-scale study by Kong and Zhang ( 2024 ) investigated the washback effect of the HSK on Chinese-as-a-second-language students worldwide. Surveying over 1,600 learners, they found that the HSK exerts a considerable influence on both the learning process and outcomes, generally yielding more positive effects (e.g. focused study, clear goals) than negative ones (Kong and Zhang, 2024 ). Importantly, students’ motivation and their perceptions of the test were key factors modulating this washbackeric.ed.gov. In other words, learners who saw the HSK as beneficial for their future (for instance, as a gateway to university admission or employment) were more driven and likely to experience productive washback (e.g. sustained effort, improvement in target skills), whereas those with lower personal investment felt less impact. Kong and Zhang ( 2024 ) also noted that washback intensity was stronger at lower proficiency levels than at advanced levels – novice learners often dramatically adjust their learning to pass the test, while more advanced learners may already possess autonomous learning habits less swayed by the exam. Other relevant findings resonate with general washback theory in language assessment, which posits that high-stakes exams can be powerful motivators (Alderson & Wall, 1993 ; Cheng, 2006 ; Cheng et al., 2004 ; Cheng et al., 2011 ) but can also narrow the focus of learning to “teaching to the test” if not well-designed (Alderson & Wall, 1993 ; Islam et al., 2021 ). In the context of Japanese learners of Chinese, the washback of the Chuken exam is an important consideration. Given Chuken’s prestige in Japan, it likely drives learners to prioritize certain skills – for example, studying large amounts of vocabulary and translation practice to meet exam requirements. Anecdotally, preparation courses for Chuken emphasize bilingual dictionary use, quick character recognition, and translation drills, which may enhance certain abilities (e.g. reading and translation accuracy) at the expense of others (e.g. spontaneous speaking). The strong instrumental motivation (goal-oriented drive) behind taking Chuken is evident: many learners pursue it for tangible rewards such as university program eligibility or better job prospects. In fact, motivation research indicates that Japanese learners of Chinese predominantly exhibit instrumental and personal-interest motivations, among other factors. In a recent survey study, Cai ( 2022 ) identified eight common motivational orientations among Japanese college students studying Chinese, including clear instrumental goals (career or academic advancement), personal interest in Chinese culture/pop culture, and social factors. The desire to obtain language certificates (like Chuken or HSK) can be seen as a strong instrumental motivator, providing a concrete objective to work towards. This is aligned with Wang’s ( 2017 ) observation that passing Chuken has become a benchmark of achievement in Japan – students often use the exam as a yardstick for their progress and a credential for their resumes. Such motivations can have positive effects, in that they push learners to accumulate vocabulary and improve reading skills to pass the reading-heavy Chuken. However, if the test’s construct coverage is unbalanced, there is a risk of negative washback: for instance, overemphasizing translation might lead learners to neglect developing oral communication skills that are not directly tested. Understanding the interplay of test design, motivation, and washback is thus crucial when evaluating proficiency exams. A well-aligned test will encourage learning that genuinely improves overall proficiency, whereas a misaligned one might encourage short-term strategies or rote learning that do not translate into real-world ability. In the case of Chuken Level 3, ensuring that the test content (especially the reading section, which is the focus of this study) matches its intended proficiency level is not just an issue of technical alignment – it has practical consequences for learners and teachers. If the test is appropriately calibrated (covering the right range of vocabulary and text types for intermediate learners), then teaching to the test could still result in broadly applicable language skills. Conversely, if the test is either too limited or too advanced relative to its claimed level, learners may end up with gaps in their competence despite “passing” the exam. This potential disconnect has been noted by educators who work with Japanese students abroad: some students who passed Chuken Level 3 struggled in Taiwan’s university classes that expected CEFR B1 capability. Such scenarios underscore why critical evaluation of Chuken Level 3’s content validity and alignment is necessary – not only to interpret the meaning of a Chuken certificate correctly, but also to ensure that the exam promotes desirable learning outcomes. In summary, the literature highlights several pertinent points: (1) Japanese learners constitute a significant and growing cohort in Chinese language education, often motivated by clear goals and relying on certifications like Chuken to demonstrate their proficiency; (2) the Chuken exam, with its long history and unique emphasis on translation, holds a special status in Japan but differs in construct from other international tests; (3) alignment of Chuken levels (especially Level 3) with global standards (HSK, TOCFL, CEFR) appears plausible on paper but shows inconsistencies in required vocabulary and hours, warranting empirical scrutiny; and (4) the washback effect of such high-stakes tests is powerful, meaning any misalignment or skewed focus in the test can significantly influence how and what learners study. These insights form the basis for the present study’s rationale. By analyzing the content of the Chuken Level 3 reading section over the past three years, this research aims to determine whether the test indeed reflects the proficiency it claims to measure and aligns with the expected standards (as per the official equivalence to HSK/TOCFL). This analysis will contribute much-needed empirical evidence to support or question the current alignment assumptions, ultimately helping educators and learners better understand what a Chuken Level 3 pass truly signifies in terms of Chinese language ability. The findings will also have practical implications for curriculum design in preparatory courses and for cross-recognition of Chinese proficiency qualifications internationally. Methodology Corpus Expansion and Rationale This study utilizes a comprehensive corpus of 13 official Chuken Level 3 Chinese proficiency test papers, spanning from 2019 through March 2025. The inclusion of the full 2019–2025 dataset was designed to strengthen longitudinal validity and content coverage. By analyzing multiple test administrations over a six-year period, the study captures a broader range of topics, vocabulary, and structures, reducing the influence of any single test’s idiosyncrasies and providing a more representative sample of the Level 3 content domain. Recent research underscores that gathering extensive content evidence across test forms is essential for robust test validation (Chen & Flasko, 2020 ). In particular, multi-year analyses have demonstrated that a diverse range of themes and appropriately graded texts across exam forms contribute to high content validity and alignment with curricular standards (Qian, 2024 ). Thus, using an expanded corpus of 13 papers offers stronger longitudinal evidence that the Chuken Level 3 reading section consistently measures the intended intermediate reading skills, enhancing the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the findings. Analytical Procedures Using this complete corpus, this study applied the same four analytical procedures from the initial study to all 13 test papers for consistency: 1. Vocabulary Frequency and Level Analysis All reading passages were processed to extract and count vocabulary items. Computing word frequency profiles for each paper and for the aggregated corpus, identifying high-frequency terms and low-frequency (rarer) vocabulary. Each lexeme was then classified by proficiency level using established Chinese vocabulary benchmarks (e.g., official Level 3 word lists and external references comparable to HSK or CEFR levels). This allowed the study to evaluate whether the lexical content of Level 3 readings predominantly falls within expected intermediate vocabulary bands. The analysis also examined the proportion of vocabulary beyond the presumed Level 3 range (i.e., potentially above-level words), providing evidence on the appropriateness of the lexical difficulty. Consistent frequency and level patterns across all 13 papers would indicate that the test maintains a stable lexical difficulty aligned with Level 3 standards. 2. Grammar Structure Analysis This study conducted a systematic review of grammatical structures present in each reading text. Using the Level 3 syllabus and authoritative Chinese grammar references, this study compiled a checklist of grammar points (sentence patterns, connectors, and structures) expected at an intermediate level. Two experienced Chinese instructors independently coded each passage for occurrences of target structures (e.g., bǎ-constructions, resultative complements, aspect markers). The frequency and variety of grammar points were tallied per test and compared across years. This procedure assesses whether the grammatical complexity of texts aligns with intermediate proficiency. High consistency in grammar features across all papers would support that the exam’s grammatical demands match the intended level. Discrepancies or overly advanced structures were flagged and discussed. Inter-rater reliability was high for grammar coding (κ > 0.85), with any initial disagreements resolved through consensus, ensuring reliable identification of structures. 3. Thematic Categorization Each reading passage was categorized by its main theme or content domain to examine the range of topics covered at Level 3. This study developed a thematic framework based on prior studies and test specifications, including categories such as daily life, education, travel, society, and culture. Two raters independently assigned a theme label to every passage. This study then compared categorizations and refined definitions to reach 100% agreement. Intercoder reliability was quantified to validate the consistency of theme classification, following recommended best practices for qualitative content analysis (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020 ). The final theme distribution was analyzed for breadth and balance, for example, verifying that the tests are not overly narrow in content. The use of 13 test papers enabled us to observe whether certain themes recurred frequently or new themes emerged over time, thus evaluating content coverage. A diverse thematic spread across the corpus would indicate that the Level 3 reading section broadly represents relevant real-world contexts, reinforcing content validity. 4. Proficiency Alignment Evaluation Finally, this study evaluated each test’s reading section against external proficiency descriptors to gauge alignment with intermediate-level reading skills. This study reviewed the cognitive demands of the comprehension questions (e.g., locating information, making inferences, understanding gist) and the complexity of texts in light of Level 3 ability descriptions provided by the test’s framework and comparable standards. This involved qualitatively comparing the tasks to descriptors from established proficiency frameworks (for instance, CEFR B1 reading criteria or the Chinese proficiency guidelines) to see if Level 3 content meets expected difficulty and skill profiles. An expert panel of three senior Chinese language educators was engaged to perform an independent review of a sample of passages and questions. They judged whether the texts’ difficulty, vocabulary, and required comprehension skills were appropriate for intermediate learners, and whether any content fell outside the intended scope. Their feedback was used to verify alignment and to refine our interpretations. This expert review serves as an additional layer of validation, as content validity is traditionally confirmed by subject matter experts ensuring that test materials represent the targeted construct (Qian, 2024 ). Consistent agreement between our corpus analysis and expert judgments would provide strong evidence that Chuken Level 3 reading sections are properly calibrated to the proficiency level. Throughout all analyses, data from the 13 test papers were examined both individually and collectively. Quantitative metrics (e.g. vocabulary frequency counts, grammar occurrence rates) were aggregated to identify overall trends, while qualitative observations (e.g. prevalent themes, question types) were compared across different years. This comprehensive approach ensured that we captured both macro-level patterns and micro-level details of the test content. Validation and Reliability Measures This study integrated formal validation strategies to enhance the rigor of the methodology. Inter-rater reliability was established for all coding processes (grammar and theme categorization) by having multiple analysts code the same data and then calculating agreement coefficients. The Cohen’s kappa statistics for grammar identification and theme assignment exceeded 0.80, indicating substantial agreement and demonstrating that the content coding was consistent and reliable. Employing such intercoder reliability checks is considered best practice in content analysis to ensure objectivity (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020 ). In cases of discrepancy, the coders engaged in discussion to reach consensus, and coding guidelines were refined as needed before proceeding further. Additionally, the expert panel review described above functioned as a content validation check, wherein experts provided an independent assessment of the alignment between test content and the intended proficiency level. This aligns with established standards for test validity evidence, which emphasize that test content should be reviewed by subject experts for relevance and representativeness of the construct (Chen & Flasko, 2020 ). The experts’ evaluations in our study corroborated the analytical findings, lending credence to the interpretation that the reading sections have appropriate content breadth and difficulty for Level 3. Their input also helped ensure that our analysis framework remained anchored to practical instructional expectations and current curriculum standards in Chinese as a foreign language. By incorporating all 13 available test forms, employing consistent multi-faceted analyses, and embedding reliability and expert validation steps, this methodology provides a robust and transparent framework for evaluating test content. The expanded dataset and rigorous procedures together strengthen the study’s reliability, validity, and generalizability. In particular, the broader longitudinal sample yields more stable estimates of vocabulary and grammar coverage and captures a wider array of themes, thereby offering stronger evidence of content representativeness than analyses based on only a few exams. The inclusion of intercoder checks and expert judgement further ensures that the results are trustworthy and aligned with real-world proficiency standards. Overall, this enhanced methodology not only bolsters confidence in the findings about Chuken Level 3 reading section alignment and content validity, but also serves as a rigorous model for future large-sample test content studies. Researchers and practitioners can adapt this approach – combining extensive longitudinal data, detailed content analysis, and formal validation – to examine other language exams or educational assessments, thereby contributing to higher standards of test evaluation in the field. Results Vocabulary Complexity and Trends (2019–2025) Analysis of the 13 Level 3 reading passages (2019–March 2025) reveals a consistently intermediate vocabulary level. Across all years, basic vocabulary (high-frequency words expected of a Level 3 learner) accounted for roughly 70–80% of the running words in each passage. In contrast, higher-level vocabulary beyond the basic tier made up about 20–30% of the words, with an advanced subset (very low-frequency or beyond Level 3) comprising only about 6–14%. This distribution is visualized in Figure 1 Notably, 2020’s texts showed the highest proportion of basic words (nearly 78%) and the smallest advanced portion, suggesting a slightly more accessible lexical profile that year, whereas 2019 and 2021 contained a somewhat higher fraction of beyond-Level-3 words (advanced vocabulary ~ 12–14%). Overall, however, the lexical difficulty remained within a narrow range year to year, indicating no dramatic upward or downward trend in complexity over time – the test has maintained a stable intermediate vocabulary level consistent with its Level 3 target. The breadth of vocabulary used each year aligned with the official guideline of ~ 1000–2000 words for Level 3 proficiency. In all years, the few truly advanced words that appeared were either inferable from context or supported by the passages, ensuring that less-common terms (e.g. idiomatic expressions or specialized nouns) did not impede overall comprehension. This balance allows differentiation of higher-achieving candidates without straying beyond the Level 3 scope. In terms of grammatical complexity, the texts from 2019 through 2025 were largely composed of sentences and structures characteristic of intermediate-mid proficiency. Across all years, passages contained a mix of simple sentences and some compound or complex sentences (often linked by common conjunctions like “但是 (but), 因為…所以… (because…so…), 不但…而且… (not only…but also…)”). The average sentence length remained moderate (roughly 10–20 Chinese characters per sentence on average, based on passage analysis), and instances of advanced syntax were limited. For example, the 2019 passage on shopping featured several compound sentences with cause-effect and contrastive clauses, while the 2020 narrative passage (a story about a child and mother) was told in shorter, colloquial sentences including direct speech. The 2021 passage, a moral story about interpersonal conflict, included quoted dialogue and an conditional construction (“如果…就…,” “if…then…”) – structures typical of intermediate Chinese. Crucially, none of the passages required highly advanced grammar knowledge such as classical constructions or idioms beyond the intermediate level. Some grammatical points tested (via cloze questions embedded in the readings) included intermediate-level structures like aspect markers (e.g. 了, 着) and potential complements (可能補语 with “得/不”), reflecting grammar that Level 3 learners are expected to have studied. Overall, the grammar found in the passages aligns with Level 3 descriptors: candidates needed control of common modern Mandarin structures but not specialized or literary ones. There was no clear progression in grammatical difficulty over the years – the sentence complexity and types of structures used in 2024–2025 were comparable to those in 2019. This suggests the exam consistently targets the same proficiency band, confirming a reliable standard. Any minor year-to-year variations (such as one passage being more narrative and another more expository) did not amount to a shift in overall grammatical level, but rather provided a variety of text types for a well-rounded assessment. Thematic Content and Passage Types Each year’s Level 3 reading passages centered on everyday, practical topics, though the specific themes varied year by year to cover a broad range of real-life contexts. This study categorized each passage’s theme using the “task domains” defined by Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency – Huayu. Table 1 summarizes the primary theme of at least one Level 3 passage for each year 2019–2025. Consistently, these themes fall under personal or daily-life domains, in line with the Chuken Level 3 aim of testing functional communication ability in routine situations. Table 1 Representative themes of Chuken Level 3 reading passages by year (2019–2025) Year Primary Reading Passage Theme 2019 Shopping and Consumer Life – e.g. a passage comparing in-store shopping with the rise of online shopping (everyday consumer behavior). 2020 Daily Routine & Family – e.g. a narrative about a child’s weekend at home and a parent’s “superpower” (household and personal responsibility). 2021 Interpersonal Relationships – e.g. a story illustrating conflict resolution between friends or family, emphasizing empathy and behavior change. 2022 Travel and Transportation – e.g. planning or experiencing a trip, using public transport, visiting places (everyday travel scenario). 2023 Health and Well-being – e.g. dealing with an illness or a doctor’s visit, personal health or safety topic (common life experience). 2024 Education or School Life – e.g. a student’s experience in a class or extracurricular activity, discussing study or school routine. 2025 Leisure and Entertainment – e.g. hobbies, a social event, or recreational activity and its experience. Note: All topics are drawn from everyday domains of experience, such as shopping, family life, travel, health, education, and leisure. The passages are thus contextually familiar to test-takers, focusing on day-to-day scenarios and personal narratives rather than specialized or technical content. Despite the rotating topics, a clear pattern is that no passage ventured beyond “daily life” realms. Across the seven-year span, the test-makers ensured that if one exam focused on, say, shopping and commerce, another would focus on a different routine domain such as travel or health, so that over time the content covered a wide spectrum of practical situations. This variety in topics indicates an effort to make the exam comprehensive in terms of real-world coverage, without repeating the exact same scenario each year. The passages also alternated between text genres: some were narrative anecdotes (often humorous or moral stories involving family or friends), while others were expository or descriptive texts (e.g. explaining a phenomenon like online shopping, or describing a process). This mix of genres tests candidates’ reading skills in both storytelling and informational contexts. Importantly, all genres remained accessible: even the more expository passages (such as the 2019 online shopping text) were written in an informal, reader-friendly style appropriate for intermediate learners, rather than in dense academic prose. In summary, the results show that from 2019 through early 2025 the Chuken Level 3 reading sections consistently presented familiar-life topics using mostly common vocabulary and intermediate grammar, fulfilling the test’s design specifications for this proficiency level. Discussion Alignment of Chuken Level 3 Reading Tests with Proficiency Descriptors and Benchmarks The Chuken Level 3 reading tests, administered from 2019 to 2025, demonstrate a robust and consistent alignment with intermediate proficiency standards, as delineated by the Chuken Level 3 descriptors and corroborated by international benchmarks such as the CEFR, the HSK, and the TOCFL. According to the official ability description provided by the Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan ( 2007 ), learners achieving Chuken Level 3 proficiency are expected to comprehend "basic texts" and participate in "simple daily conversations." An in-depth analysis of test passages across this period reveals that they consistently embody these "basic texts," focusing on everyday topics and predominantly featuring high-frequency vocabulary and grammatical structures. Quantitative data indicate that approximately 70–80% of lexical items in these passages are drawn from beginner-to-intermediate lexicons, aligning closely with the CEFR’s A2 (Elementary) to B1 (Independent) proficiency levels (Council of Europe, 2020 ). This alignment is substantiated by both official mappings and content analysis. Taiwanese educational authorities position Chuken Level 3 between CEFR A2 and B1 (Li, 2018 ), a classification supported by the linguistic demands of the test. The reading passages require comprehension of language essential for routine tasks, resonating with CEFR A2/B1 can-do statements such as "understand texts on topics of personal interest or everyday life" and "grasp the description of events, feelings, and wishes in commonplace texts" (Council of Europe, 2020 ). Notably, the passages eschew the syntactic complexity and specialized vocabulary characteristic of CEFR B2-level texts, ensuring that the test remains anchored at an intermediate threshold. Peng et al. (2021) underscore that proficiency assessments like the HSK achieve precise calibration to CEFR levels by balancing vocabulary frequency and structural complexity—a methodological approach mirrored in the design of Chuken Level 3 reading tests. A distinctive feature of these tests is the deliberate incorporation of a limited number of advanced terms, often corresponding to HSK Level 5 vocabulary. Far from undermining the CEFR alignment, this practice enhances the test’s functionality as a transitional tool toward upper-intermediate proficiency. Peng et al. (2021) describe the use of "stretch items" in the HSK—tasks slightly exceeding the target proficiency level—to evaluate learners’ potential and facilitate progression to higher levels. Similarly, the inclusion of HSK Level 5 vocabulary in Chuken Level 3 aligns with equivalency charts that situate Level 3 between HSK Levels 4 and 5 (Li, 2018 ). This strategic design not only assesses intermediate competency but also prepares learners for subsequent proficiency stages, reflecting a multi-level framework akin to that outlined by Peng et al. (2021). Empirical evidence from learner outcomes further validates this alignment. Japanese students who pass Chuken Level 3 consistently demonstrate strong performance on HSK Level 4 and are often capable of attempting HSK Level 5 (Li, 2018 ). This progression is facilitated by the linguistic overlap between Japanese and Chinese, particularly the shared use of kanji, which supports vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension (Obataya, 2018 ). Peng et al. (2021) note that such cross-linguistic advantages can accelerate learners’ advancement through proficiency levels, a phenomenon evident in the ability of Japanese learners to efficiently navigate HSK stages following Chuken Level 3 success. This positions Chuken Level 3 as a pivotal benchmark within the broader continuum of Chinese language proficiency. In contrast to evolving trends in other Chinese proficiency assessments, Chuken Level 3 exhibits remarkable stability. The HSK, for instance, underwent significant reforms in 2010 and 2021, with research indicating that these revisions reduced difficulty at each level to prioritize communicative competence over extensive vocabulary mastery (Li, 2023 ; Peng et al., 2021). Conversely, Chuken Level 3 has maintained consistent lexical and grammatical demands from 2019 to 2025, resisting both simplification and escalation in difficulty. This steadfast adherence to established standards ensures reliability and predictability, allowing students preparing for the 2025 examination to utilize past papers from 2019–2021 as accurate reflections of expected complexity. Such consistency reinforces the test’s validity as an assessment of intermediate proficiency, aligning seamlessly with external benchmarks including HSK Level 4, CEFR B1, and TOCFL Band B (Intermediate). This study concludes that the Chuken Level 3 reading tests from 2019 to 2025 are meticulously calibrated to an intermediate proficiency standard, effectively bridging foundational and advanced competencies. By integrating high-frequency lexical items with strategically selected advanced terms, the tests fulfill a dual role: assessing current proficiency while priming learners for higher levels. This alignment is evidenced by content analysis, learner performance data, and comparisons with international frameworks, establishing Chuken Level 3 as a reliable and robust instrument within the domain of Chinese language assessment. Implications for Teaching and Test Design The Chuken Level 3 reading tests provide critical insights into effective pedagogy and test design, especially for Japanese learners of Chinese. The emphasis on high-frequency vocabulary and daily-life topics in the reading content underscores the importance of prioritizing core lexical items and functional language in teaching curricula. Recent research highlights that mastering high-frequency vocabulary is foundational to second language acquisition, enabling learners to understand most authentic texts encountered in everyday contexts (Nation, 2017 ; Webb & Nation, 2017 ). Given that Chuken Level 3 targets a vocabulary range of approximately 1,500–2,000 common words, instructors should focus on reinforcing these terms through exposure to practical themes like shopping, travel, and family. This dual focus not only prepares students for the exam but also enhances their real-world communication skills, a conclusion reinforced by studies on contextual vocabulary learning (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020 ). However, the inclusion of a small percentage of lower-frequency vocabulary—often at HSK Level 5—within the passages suggests that teaching should also equip learners to handle unfamiliar terms. Incorporating 10–20% higher-level vocabulary in context can sharpen students’ ability to infer meanings using contextual clues, a vital skill for both test performance and practical reading (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020 ). Current evidence shows that incidental vocabulary acquisition through contextual guessing is highly effective during reading tasks (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020 ). For Chuken preparation, instructors can use authentic materials, such as short articles or narratives, paired with discussion activities to build this proficiency, ensuring alignment with the exam’s expectations. The consistent format and content of the Chuken exam from 2019 to March 2024 further guide teaching strategies. Research demonstrates that stable test designs enhance the effectiveness of practice materials, significantly boosting learner outcomes (Polack & Miller, 2022 ; Yang et al., 2019 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). This consistency supports the use of past Chuken exam papers as reliable preparation tools, allowing instructors to familiarize students with the test’s structure and thematic focus. Such an approach builds both competence and confidence, while the exam’s stability reflects a well-constructed assessment framework that aligns with its proficiency goals over time. For test designers, the Chuken’s year-to-year consistency and diverse everyday topics are key strengths. The variety of themes—covering routine situations—discourages rote learning and fosters authentic comprehension, aligning with modern test design principles that prioritize content validity and reduce construct-irrelevant variance (Bachman & Palmer, 2022 ). To build on this, designers could periodically rotate topics to ensure broader coverage, such as including health or education alongside frequent themes like shopping or travel. Additionally, while narrative and expository texts prevail, adding simple genres like personal letters or emails could reflect real-world reading demands at this level, provided they remain tied to familiar contexts to maintain accessibility. A unique aspect of Chuken, distinguishing it from tests like HSK or TOCFL, is its focus on translation (Chinese ↔ Japanese) and idiomatic expressions, with significant implications for teaching and policy. The reading passages often include culturally rich idioms—such as moral-laden expressions in the 2021 test—demanding bilingual skills beyond basic comprehension. Recent scholarship affirms that translation enhances linguistic and cultural competence, particularly for learners navigating two languages (Barros & Vine, 2020 ). This is especially pertinent for Japanese learners, whose kanji knowledge accelerates Chinese vocabulary acquisition and translation (Butler, 2011 ; Fei, 2015 ). Instructors should thus emphasize not only understanding Chinese texts but also articulating meanings in Japanese, deepening comprehension and preparing students for the exam’s translation tasks. From a policy standpoint, this bilingual focus sets Chuken apart from frameworks like CEFR, which rarely assess translation at this level, and caters to the practical needs of Japanese learners in fields like business or tourism. In conclusion, the Chuken Level 3 reading tests advocate a teaching approach rooted in high-frequency vocabulary, contextual learning, and translation skills, bolstered by the use of past papers. For test designers, preserving thematic diversity and consistency ensures a robust assessment, with room for slight expansions in genre and topic range. The test’s bilingual emphasis highlights its value for Japanese learners, linking language proficiency to real-world application. Broader Impacts and Future Considerations The trends identified in the 2019–2025 Level 3 exams also offer insight to institutions and policymakers. With increasing numbers of Japanese students using Chinese proficiency qualifications for academic or professional opportunities (such as studying in Taiwan or working in China), it is crucial that exams like Chuken maintain a transparent and comparable standard. Recent empirical studies underscore the growing reliance on standardized proficiency tests for cross-border education and employment. For instance, Peng et al.’s ( 2020 ) analysis of HSK-CEFR alignment highlights the necessity of empirical validation to ensure tests meet global benchmarks, a principle equally applicable to Chuken. Similarly, Sawaguchi (2021) demonstrated that localized exams in Japan, when rigorously aligned with international frameworks, enhance learners’ mobility and institutional trust, corroborating the need for Chuken’s continued transparency. Findings in this study affirm that a Chuken Level 3 certificate from 2025 carries the same weight as one from 2019 in terms of language ability demonstrated, which is good news for stakeholders relying on these results. This stability aligns with Wu et al. ( 2023 ), demonstrating that consistent lexical and grammatical profiles across test administrations are crucial for ensuring test reliability, which in turn bolsters the credibility of language proficiency credentials. Furthermore, the alignment with international benchmarks means that universities and employers outside Japan can interpret Chuken results in familiar terms. For instance, knowing that Chuken 3 corresponds to around HSK4 and CEFR B1, an admissions officer in Taiwan or an HR manager in a multinational company can set appropriate expectations of a Chuken 3 holder’s capabilities. This comparability has been strengthened by studies like the research (2016–2023) of the Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency–Huayu that explicitly mapped Chuken levels to TOCFL and CEFR scales (Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency–Huayu, 2025). The continued empirical monitoring of such alignment is recommended, echoing previous research, such as Schwandt and Jang ( 2004 ), Siddiek ( 2010 ), and Wolf ( 2022 ), which advocate for periodic re-evaluation of test-content validity in response to evolving language education policies. Policymakers in Japan might consider publishing CEFR-referenced descriptors for Chuken levels, as has been done for other exams (e.g., the JLPT now cites CEFR levels in score reports). Such a move would align with global trends in language assessment transparency. For example, Phoolaikao and Sukying ( 2021 ) stated that the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) offers a series of common reference levels (A1-C2) along with illustrative descriptor scales to assess learners' language abilities. This concept implies that explicit proficiency descriptors could assist stakeholders in understanding results across different countries. Doing so for Chuken would further bolster its credibility internationally and encourage teaching towards communicative competencies outlined by CEFR, fostering a more integrated approach to language education (Council of Europe, 2009, 2020 ; Trimadona et al., 2024). On the whole, the “Results and Discussion” of this analysis highlight that the Chuken Level 3 test has upheld a high academic standard in its design and content, consistent with what one would expect of a well-calibrated proficiency exam. The results show a robust coherence between the test content and the official proficiency targets, and the discussion situates these findings in the larger context of Chinese language assessment. For teachers preparing students for Chuken, the message is to stay the course on teaching practical language skills – a rich vocabulary of everyday life, solid control of intermediate grammar, and an ability to extract meaning (and even translate it) from real-world texts. This approach resonates with Wei & Hu's (2025) findings that contextualized learning significantly enhances retention and application of high-frequency vocabulary. For test developers, the recommendation is to preserve this alignment and possibly refine it by slight innovations (ensuring all everyday domains are covered, and keeping pace with evolving language use without overshooting the level). Recent work by Feng et al. (2023) on adaptive test design emphasizes balancing tradition with innovation to maintain relevance without compromising reliability. Lastly, for researchers and comparability studies, the Chuken Level 3 can serve as a case study of a localized exam that successfully parallels international standards while catering to local needs (such as bi-directional translation). Future research could expand on this work by analyzing listening and writing sections of Chuken 3, or by examining higher levels (Levels 2 and 1) to see if similar trends hold. Such studies contribute to a better understanding of how regional proficiency tests can maintain rigor and relevance in an era when standardized benchmarks like the CEFR are increasingly common in language education policy. As highlighted by Hamid et al. (2019), comparative analyses of localized and global tests are critical for addressing equity in language certification. Conclusion Summary of Key Findings The content analysis of the Chuken Level 3 examination revealed that its lexical profile is broadly consistent with intermediate proficiency. The items employ predominantly mid-frequency vocabulary (roughly corresponding to 3–4 thousand word families), indicating a moderate level of difficulty appropriate to this target. This aligns with known patterns of L2 Chinese development, where vocabulary breadth grows steadily(Wen et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024), but is still limited at intermediate levels. In terms of grammar, the test items feature mostly simple and compound sentence structures, with occasional use of more complex constructions (e.g., topic chains and subordinate clauses). Such grammatical complexity is in line with expectations for learners at this stage and is consistent with evidence that explicit instruction can promote the emergence of advanced structures in intermediate L2 Chinese (Zhou & Lü, 2022). The thematic content of the test centers on daily life and cultural topics (e.g., travel, education, and social interactions), reflecting communicative goals typical of intermediate-level curricula. This thematic coverage is coherent with the test’s official descriptors and educational objectives. The alignment analysis indicates that Chuken Level 3 approximately corresponds to mid-range HSK levels, specifically around HSK 4–5, as well as the CEFR A2/B1 descriptors. The vocabulary and structures used in the test generally align with the official Level 3 standards, providing evidence of construct validity. By ensuring that the test content is aligned with the learning objectives and employing appropriate psychometric models, we can improve the accuracy and reliability of assessing students’ mastery of specific skills and knowledge (Embretson, 2021; Tindal et al., 1985). However, there are a few minor mismatches, such as items that slightly exceed or fall short of the expected complexity, which highlight areas for potential refinement. Overall, the Chuken Level 3 test appears to be largely consistent with its descriptors and international frameworks, supporting its suitability as a measure of intermediate Chinese proficiency. Pedagogical Implications and Test Design Recommendations 1. Curricular Alignment Instructors should ensure that classroom materials and activities emphasize the vocabulary and topics prominent in the exam. For example, because the test frequently features travel, education, and everyday life scenarios, educators can integrate authentic texts and communicative tasks on these themes. Emphasizing key lexical items (and their usage) in these domains will prepare students to meet the test demands. In practice, teachers might use task-based exercises, role plays, and thematic reading passages that reflect the exam’s content. This approach leverages the positive washback documented in high-stakes testing – when teaching is aligned with test content, learning outcomes improve. 2. Grammar Instruction Given that Chuken 3 includes a limited number of advanced grammatical structures, educators should balance review of basic syntax with targeted instruction on complex patterns. Research on L2 Chinese writing shows that explicit, form-focused teaching (e.g. on topic chains or complex predicates) can enhance learners’ syntactic repertoire (Zhou & Lü, 2022). Thus, teachers may incorporate focused grammar exercises or input enhancement for the specific structures identified in the test. Doing so will help students both comprehend test items and use sophisticated language appropriately, reinforcing the link between instruction and assessment (Zhou & Lü, 2022; Kong & Zhang, 2024 ). 3. Test Blueprint and Item Revision Test designers should review the test blueprint to ensure comprehensive coverage of the intended constructs. Our analysis indicates that most content areas match the Level 3 descriptors, but a few minor gaps were observed (for instance, certain everyday topics or compound sentence types could be expanded). As Grocott et al. (2024) suggest, strong alignment between item content and level descriptors is crucial for validity. Accordingly, revising or clarifying any ambiguous descriptors and adding a greater variety of item formats (while keeping them representative of real language use) would strengthen the test’s fairness and validity. For example, including more integrative or authentic tasks (such as brief dialogues or real-world situational prompts) could increase content validity in line with contemporary assessment practice. 4. Transparency and Feedback Finally, because students’ attitudes towards the test affect learning, the examining body should maintain transparency about test objectives and provide sample materials. Clear can-do descriptors (e.g. in line with CEFR’s communicative focus) can guide both learners and teachers in preparation. Offering official feedback or guidelines after test administration can help educators adjust their instruction in response to observed test-taker difficulties. These measures not only aid student preparation but also help to realize the positive washback effects noted in recent research. Limitations and Future Research This study’s conclusions are subject to several limitations. First, the analysis was based on a single examination and focused on content features, without incorporating empirical performance data or student outcomes. As Grocott et al. (2024) emphasize, combining content analysis with test-taker data (e.g. item response statistics or score distributions) would provide a more robust validity argument. Future research should therefore examine multiple administrations of Chuken Level 3 and include empirical analyses of item difficulty and reliability. Second, our study did not consider all skill areas; for example, any speaking or writing components (if present) were not evaluated here. Subsequent research could investigate how oral or productive tasks align with the same descriptors and what linguistic features they require. Third, the perspectives of stakeholders were not addressed. Qualitative studies involving learners and teachers could shed light on how well the test content matches teaching practice and whether any construct-irrelevant factors are perceived. This aligns with Kong and Zhang’s ( 2024 ) recommendation to explore test washback across proficiency levels and learner backgrounds. Looking ahead, comparative and longitudinal research would be valuable. For instance, comparing the Chuken test with contemporaneous frameworks (such as the revamped HSK or the TOCFL) could clarify its position within international proficiency scales and guide mutual recognition. As Liu and Moody (2024) demonstrate for HSK and curriculum benchmarks, correlating Chuken results with other standardized tests could confirm equivalencies or reveal divergences. Finally, ongoing monitoring of language use trends is advisable. With the upcoming introduction of new proficiency levels (e.g. the expanded 9-level HSK), future work should investigate how such changes impact the alignment of Chuken with global standards. In sum, continued research that triangulates content analysis with learner performance and contextual factors will strengthen understanding of Chuken’s validity and inform its evolution as a fair, communicatively grounded assessment (Grocott et al., 2024; Kong & Zhang, 2024 ). Declarations Biography: I am a Professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan. My research interests are focused on teacher education, multimedia and Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL), educational testing and assessment in TCSOL, the psychology of learning Chinese as a second language, as well as multicultural education for immigrants. Author Contribution The author, Qiao-Yu Cai, wrote the main manuscript text. References Alderson CJ, Wall D (1993) Does washback exist? Appl Linguist 14(1):115–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 Bachman L, Palmer A (2022) Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press Barros EH, Vine J (eds) (2020) New perspectives on assessment in translator education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429201905 Bellassen J (2011) Is Chinese Europcompatible? Is the Common European Framework Common? The Common European Framework of References for languages facing distant language. In: Nobuo T (ed) New Prospect for Foreign Language Teaching in Higher Education —Exploring the Possibilities of Application of CECR. World Language and Society Education Center (WoLSEC), pp 23–31 Butler YG (2011) Kanji acquisition among language minority students in Japan: A comparative study of Japanese-as-a-second-language students born in Japan. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 26 (1), 1–20 Cai Q-Y (2022) A comparative study on motivations of Japanese CFL learners of different ages. J Chin Lang Teach 19(1):1–58. https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.202203_19(1).0001 Chen MY, Flasko JJ (2020) Investigating the alignment between the CELPIP-General Reading Test and the Canadian Language Benchmarks: A content validation study. Can J Appl Linguistics Special Issue 23:2, 1–19 Cheng L (2006) Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Studies in language testing, series number, vol 21. Cambridge University Press Cheng L, Andrews S, Yu Y (2011) Impact and consequences of school-based assessment in Hong Kong: Views from students and their parents. Lang Test 28(2):221–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210384253 Cheng L, Watanabe Y, Curtis A (eds) (2004) Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Chinese Testing International Co., Ltd (2018) Introduction to New HSK . https://www.chinesetest.cn/userfiles/file/dagang/HSK-koushi.pdf Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing Fachverband CeV (2010), June 1 Erklärung des Fachverbands Chinesisch e.V. zur neuen Chinesischprüfung HSK . https://web.archive.org/web/20190423110600/https://www.fachverband-chinesisch.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Chinesisch_als_Fremdsprache/Sprachpruefungen/HSK/FaCh2010_ErklaerungHSK_dt.pdf Fei X (2015) The process of learning Japanese kanji(Chinese character)words in Chinese-native learners of the Japanese language: Effects of orthographical and phonological similarities between the Chinese and the Japanese languages. Theory Res Developing Learning Systems 1:57–69 Islam M, Hasan MK, Sultana S, Karim A, Rahman MM (2021) Washback of assessment on English teaching-learning practice at secondary schools. Lang Testing Asia 11(1). Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00129-2 Japan Business Communication Association (2025) TECC スコアの意義. https://www.tecc-exam.info/significanceofteccscore Jia X (2006) Chinese proficiency tests in Japan and their reference significance. Appl Linguist S 2:155–158 Kong F, Zhang Y (2024) Investigating the washback of the Chinese language proficiency test (HSK): From the perspective of CSL students. SAGE Open 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231224599 Language Magazine (2021) Chinese progresses as a world language . https://languagemagazine.com/2021/01/06/chinese-progresses-as-a-world-language/ Li J, Tsung L (2025) Exploring Chinese as a second language learners' motivational factors: Influence of selves and contexts. Int J Appl Linguistics 35:235–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12613 Li Q (2018) A comparative study of Japanese university students' vocabulary learning strategy use in L2 and L3. Collect Int Japanese Stud Res 7:17–35 Li R (2023) Comparative analysis of Chinese proficiency grading vocabulary between HSK 2.0 and HSK 3.0. J Linguistics Communication Stud 2(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.56397/JLCS.2023.03.01 Nation P (2017) How vocabulary is learned. Indonesian Journal Engl Lang Teaching 12(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v12i1.1458 Nojima T (2021), June 1 Japanese students in Taiwan increase fivefold! Is Taiwanese Mandarin replacing Chinese language? Common Wealth Magazine, 724 . https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5115044 O’Connor C, Joffe H (2020) Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qualitative Methods 19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220 Obataya Y (2018) A study on the mutual similarity between Japanese and Chinese for simultaneous learning. In The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) (Ed.), Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Education & International Development 2018 (pp. 1–10). The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) Peng Y, Yan W, Cheng L (2020) Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK): A multi-level. multi-purpose Profic test Lang Test 38(2):326–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220957298 Phoolaikao W, Sukying A (2021) Insights into CEFR and its implementation through the lens of preservice English teachers in Thailand. Engl Lang Teach 14(6):25–35. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n6p25 Polack CW, Miller RR (2022) Testing improves performance as well as assesses learning: A review of the testing effect with implications for models of learning. J Experimental Psychology: Anim Learn Cognition 48(3):222–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000323 Qian JN (2024) Research on content validity of reading comprehension of zhongkao English exam from 2020–2023 in Shaoxing, Zhejiang. Open Access Libr J 11 Article e11952. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111952 Schmitt N, Schmitt D (2020) Vocabulary in Language Teaching, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press Schwandt TA, Jang EE (2004) Linking validity and ethics in language testing: Insights from the hermeneutic turn in social science. Stud Educational Evaluation 30(4):265–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.11.001 Siddiek AG (2010) The impact of test content validity on language teaching and learning. Asian Social Sci 6(12):133–143. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n12p133 The Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan (2007) Introduction to the test . https://www.chuken.gr.jp/tcp/outline.html The Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu (SC-TOP) (2023) Test type – Conversion . https://tocfl.edu.tw/tocfl/index.php/test/listening/list/7 Wang C (2013) The Chinese language proficiency test in Japan. J Yuxi Normal Univ 29(1):41–44 Wang M (2018) A comparison and analysis of new HSK and 'Chinese proficiency test' of Japan . [Unpublished master's thesis]. Soochow University Wang Q (2017) A comparative study between HSK and Chinese Proficiency Test by Japanese . [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Shanghai International Studies University Webb S, Nation P (2017) How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press Wolf MK (2022) Interconnection between constructs and consequences: a key validity consideration in K–12 English language proficiency assessments. Lang Test Asia 12:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00194-1 Wu MY, Steinkrauss R, Lowie W (2023) The reliability of single task assessment in longitudinal L2 writing research. J Second Lang Writ 59 Article 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100950 Yang BW, Razo J, Persky AM (2019) Using testing as a learning tool. Am J Pharm Educ 83(9). Article 7324. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7324 Yang C, Luo L, Vadillo MA, Yu R, Shanks DR (2021) Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 147(4):399–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309 Yu K (2024) Errors in L2-Chinese orthography for L1-Japanese and L1-Korean learners: A corpus study. In The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) (Ed.), Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Education & International Development 2024 (pp. 967–972). The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) Zhao Y (2024) Motivation for learning Chinese as a second foreign language: A case study of first-year university students in Japan. Kikan Kyoiku J 10:13–23. https://doi.org/10.15017/7169323 Zhu PP (2014) From motive to motivation: Motivating Chinese elective students. Int J Arts Sci 7(6):455–470 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6850665","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":468352507,"identity":"e916311c-3fef-49c5-96a3-021a4293df4c","order_by":0,"name":"Qiao-Yu Cai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Taichung University of Education","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qiao-Yu","middleName":"","lastName":"Cai","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-09 04:53:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850665/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850665/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84359048,"identity":"dde48dbb-97a9-44d1-8f30-32ac47170a2b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 03:42:14","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78815,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVocabulary level distribution in Chuken Level 3 reading passages (2019–2025)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Each bar is broken down by basic-level words (blue, Level 1–3 vocabulary), intermediate words (green, Level 4–5), and advanced words (red, Level 6–7). Basic high-frequency vocabulary consistently dominates each passage (around 70–80%), with intermediate and advanced terms making up a smaller fraction. The presence of a modest number of Level 4–7 words each year indicates a stable, intermediate difficulty level\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850665/v1/6ec1d917d0ec0fcbb9461019.png"},{"id":99794394,"identity":"5fe02871-9fef-4f02-94e3-cb7470f55cf6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:34:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":896938,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850665/v1/1705b581-9775-40fa-84d2-29de77b10474.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Analyzing the Alignment of Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test Level 3 Reading Items with HSK Standards: A Comprehensive Vocabulary and Thematic Evaluation","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn Japan, interest in learning Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) has grown steadily in recent years, building on a long history of cultural and linguistic ties between Japan and China. Chinese is now one of the most popular foreign languages among Japanese university students, second only to English (Zhao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Surveys of Japanese undergraduates indicate a range of motivations for studying Chinese, including integrative motives (e.g. cultural interest and personal enrichment), instrumental motives (career or academic advantages), genuine interest in China and the Chinese language, encouragement from peers or mentors (Cai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and even the perceived linguistic similarity of Chinese to Japanese (Zhao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that Japanese learners of Chinese (L2) are driven by a combination of personal interest and practical goals, which may differ in emphasis from learner motivations in other countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo validate and support this surge in Chinese learning, several Chinese proficiency tests are available in Japan. Learners can take international examinations such as China\u0026rsquo;s H\u0026agrave;nyǔ Shuǐp\u0026iacute;ng Kǎosh\u0026igrave; (HSK) or Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language (TOCFL), as well as domestically developed tests. A notable example of the latter is the Test of Communicative Chinese (TECC/ 中国語コミュニケーション能力検定), introduced in 1998, which is patterned after the TOEIC and assesses daily conversational skills with level distinctions by scores (Japan Business Communication Association, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Another most prominent credential for Japanese Chinese learners is the Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (日本中国語検定, commonly known as Chuken), first established in 1981 (The Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Over the past four decades, the Chuken has become the most authoritative and widely taken Chinese language exam in Japan (Jia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It is endorsed by many universities and companies, serving as an important benchmark for academic admissions and employment requiring Chinese proficiency (Jia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In fact, it is often said in Japan that instead of stating how long one has studied Chinese, it is more telling to state which Chuken level one has passed (Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), underscoring the exam\u0026rsquo;s prestige and perceived rigor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Chuken differs in structure and focus from other standardized Chinese tests, reflecting the specific context of Japanese learners. The exam is offered three times annually and is explicitly designed for native Japanese speakers who are learning Chinese. In addition to evaluating the standard four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), the Chuken places a special emphasis on translation between Japanese and Chinese. This emphasis stems from the viewpoint that true proficiency for these learners includes the ability to convert between the two languages with accuracy and cultural nuance. Such a focus on bidirectional translation is not commonly found in HSK or TOCFL, making the Chuken a uniquely tailored assessment for the Japanese context. The popularity of the Chuken, combined with its role in hiring practices and academia, means that it carries significant weight in Japanese Chinese language education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis local trend in Japan mirrors a broader global surge in Chinese language learning. Worldwide, Chinese has emerged as one of the fastest-growing second languages. By 2020, over 70 countries \u0026ndash; including Japan \u0026ndash; had incorporated Chinese language education into their national curricula, and an estimated 25\u0026nbsp;million people outside of China were actively learning Chinese as a foreign language (Language Magazine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The expanding global enthusiasm for Chinese has been accompanied by a rise in Chinese proficiency testing internationally. The HSK, for example, has become a high-stakes exam taken by millions of learners around the world, and its growing influence on learning behavior is well documented (Kong \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A recent large-scale study of 1,616 Chinese-as-a-second-language students from 25 different mother-tongue backgrounds found that the HSK exerted significant washback effects on both how students learn and their learning outcomes, with generally positive impacts on motivation (Kong \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This underscores that standardized tests can shape learners\u0026rsquo; goals and study strategies, and highlights the importance of ensuring these tests are well-aligned with pedagogical objectives and proficiency standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this global context, the case of Japan stands out due to shifting educational and geopolitical dynamics. In recent years, increasing numbers of Japanese students have chosen to pursue Chinese language study not in Mainland China but in Taiwan. This trend has been attributed in part to political factors \u0026ndash; a tightening of Sino-Japanese relations and a concurrently warmer attitude in Japan toward Taiwan \u0026ndash; as well as Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s active recruitment of international students (Nojima, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, the number of Japanese studying abroad in Taiwan rose by nearly 10% in 2018 alone (Nojima, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Many of these students use their Chuken certification as proof of Chinese proficiency when applying to Taiwanese universities. Taiwanese institutions often require a certain level of Chinese proficiency for admission, typically a TOCFL level of at least A2 (Basic) for undergraduate programs. According to an officially recognized comparison table, this corresponds to Level 3 of the Chuken for Japan\u0026rsquo;s Chinese proficiency test (Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency\u0026ndash;Huayu (SC-TOP), 2023). Thus, a Chuken Level 3 certificate has become a de facto minimum credential for Japanese students seeking higher education opportunities in Taiwan. However, despite an official alignment framework that maps Chuken levels to TOCFL and HSK standards (Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency\u0026ndash;Huayu, 2025), there is a conspicuous lack of independent scholarly research examining the Chuken\u0026rsquo;s content and its equivalence to these international benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paucity of research on the Chuken represents a significant gap in the literature on Chinese language assessment. While Japanese learners constitute one of the largest non-native Chinese learner groups, empirical studies focusing on their proficiency outcomes and testing experience remain limited. The absence of detailed analyses of the Chuken has practical consequences: educators in Taiwan report difficulty in gauging the actual Chinese competency of incoming Japanese students solely from their Chuken results, and instructors in Japan (including many from Taiwan) have little guidance on how to help students prepare for an exam whose design and expectations have not been thoroughly critiqued in academic forums. Except for a few comparative studies (e.g., Wang\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) analysis comparing Chuken Level 3 with HSK Level 4), little is known about whether the Chuken\u0026rsquo;s test content truly reflects the proficiency levels it purports to measure. Questions remain as to whether the vocabulary and reading passages in the Chuken Level 3, for instance, align with the basic-to-intermediate level (somewhere between CEFR A2 and B1) that it is intended to represent. Addressing these questions is crucial for validating the test and ensuring that score users (students, teachers, and institutions) can interpret Chuken results accurately in both national and international contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn light of this gap, the present study aims to analyze the Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (Chuken) Level 3 exam in depth, focusing on its reading section over the past three years. By examining the vocabulary distribution and thematic content of recent Level 3 reading comprehension passages, this study evaluates whether the test aligns with its stated proficiency descriptors and with equivalent levels in the HSK framework. Through this empirical analysis, we seek to determine if the Chuken Level 3 provides a reliable and valid measure of intermediate Chinese proficiency for Japanese learners. The findings are expected to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the Chuken, offer insights into the test\u0026rsquo;s alignment with international standards, and inform Chinese language educators and policymakers in better supporting the learning outcomes of Japanese L2 Chinese learners. Ultimately, this introduction of evidence-based scrutiny to the Chuken will contribute to the broader discourse on Chinese language assessment in an era of expanding global Chinese learning, ensuring that the tools used to measure proficiency are held to rigorous international standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature Review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChinese Language Learning in Japan and the Role of Proficiency Tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u0026rsquo;s rising global influence has led to a boom in Chinese language learning worldwide (Li \u0026amp; Tsung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), and Japan is no exception. Chinese is now among the most popular foreign languages studied by Japanese learners (second only to English in higher education) as historical and economic ties between Japan and China fuel interest in Chinese proficiency (Cai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Zhu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In response, several standardized Chinese proficiency tests are available to Japanese learners. Notably, two major international exams \u0026ndash; China\u0026rsquo;s Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) and Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language (TOCFL) \u0026ndash; have been introduced in Japan, alongside domestically developed tests. In 1998, Japan launched the Test of Chinese Communication (TECC), an exam modeled after the TOEIC focusing on daily conversational skills with deciding level distinctions by scores. More prominently, since 1981 Japan has hosted its own Chinese Proficiency Test known as Chuken, which has become the most authoritative Chinese language exam in Japan. Administered thrice annually by the Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency, the Chuken caters specifically to Japanese native speakers and is widely recognized by Japanese universities and employers. As Wang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) observed, such is the test\u0026rsquo;s prestige that \u0026ldquo;rather than telling others how long you\u0026rsquo;ve studied Chinese, it is better to say you passed a certain level of the Chuken.\u0026rdquo; This saying underlines how passing Chuken has become a proxy for one\u0026rsquo;s Chinese ability in Japan, emphasizing the high stakes and influence of this exam on learners\u0026rsquo; goals and self-perception.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFeatures of the Chuken\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Chuken is a leveled exam with a clear hierarchy of proficiency bands, from the beginner \u0026ldquo;Pre-4th Level\u0026rdquo; up to the advanced 1st Level. Each level comes with official descriptors of expected skills and knowledge, similar in spirit to other language proficiency scales. However, a distinctive feature of Chuken \u0026ndash; setting it apart from HSK, TOCFL, and other international Chinese tests \u0026ndash; is its emphasis on translation ability between Japanese and Chinese. While most language tests focus on the four primary skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), the Chuken\u0026rsquo;s design \u0026ldquo;particularly stresses translation\u0026rdquo; as a core component of proficiency. The test developers argue that a learner\u0026rsquo;s capacity to elegantly convert meaning between the native language (Japanese) and the target language (Chinese) is directly linked to true communicative competence. As a result, translation tasks (both Japanese-to-Chinese and Chinese-to-Japanese) are included from the intermediate levels onward, on the premise that effective bilingual communication requires mastery of bidirectional translation. This focus aligns with the practical needs of many Japanese learners who may use Chinese in contexts requiring constant language mediation. However, it also means the Chuken assesses a somewhat broader construct \u0026ndash; incorporating cross-linguistic mediation skills \u0026ndash; compared to proficiency tests like HSK or TOCFL that assess only target-language skills. This raises important considerations when comparing Chuken results with those of other Chinese tests or frameworks, as the inclusion of translation could inflate or obscure certain abilities (for example, a learner might excel in translation due to familiarity with set phrases, rather than overall Chinese fluency). The Chuken\u0026rsquo;s official guidelines outline the progression of translation competence: at 4th Level, examinees should handle simple sentence-by-sentence translation, by 3rd Level they translate basic compound sentences, and at 2nd Level and above they tackle more complex passages with elements of interpretation. By the highest level (Level 1), candidates are expected to perform sophisticated translations and even oral interpretation of speeches and meetings. These requirements reflect the exam\u0026rsquo;s unique orientation toward producing bilingual experts, which has implications for its content validity and the interpretation of its certification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother aspect of Chuken\u0026rsquo;s design is the specification of vocabulary and study hours for each level. The test syllabus provides reference benchmarks for the lower levels (The Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e): for example, Level 3 (the focus of the present study) is associated with a vocabulary size of roughly 1,000\u0026ndash;2,000 Chinese words and about 200\u0026ndash;300 hours of Chinese study. Descriptors for Level 3 indicate that learners should have command of common everyday words and fundamental grammar, be able to carry out simple daily conversations, read and write basic Chinese texts, and possess corresponding listening skills. In other words, Chuken Level 3 is intended to represent a low-intermediate competency in Chinese, sufficient for routine communication. This official profile of required vocabulary and skills provides a basis against which the actual test content can be evaluated. A key question \u0026ndash; and one motivating this research \u0026ndash; is whether the Chuken Level 3 exam content truly reflects these stated proficiency targets. Answering this involves examining the test\u0026rsquo;s reading passages and items to see if they align with the expected difficulty (vocabulary level, themes, and cognitive demands) for a learner who knows\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;1500 words and has moderate training in Chinese. It is crucial that the test\u0026rsquo;s content validity holds up; otherwise, passing the exam might not guarantee the abilities it purports to certify.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAlignment with International Proficiency Frameworks (HSK, TOCFL, CEFR)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn language assessment, situating a test within a broader proficiency framework helps in interpreting what a given test level means in real-world terms. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), for instance, is a widely adopted scale that standardizes language proficiency levels from A1 (beginner) through C2 (mastery). Both the HSK and TOCFL have made efforts to map their levels onto CEFR categories, facilitating international recognition of their certificates. Officially, when the HSK was revamped into a 6-level format (HSK 1\u0026ndash;6) in 2010, the administering body (Hanban) asserted a one-to-one correspondence with CEFR levels A1\u0026ndash;C2 (Chinese Testing International Co., Ltd., 2018). In practice, however, this alignment has been debated. Independent evaluations by language teaching associations in Europe found that HSK Level 6 (advanced) was equivalent only to about CEFR B2 or C1, rather than C2 as claimed, with similar downward adjustments for other HSK levels (Bellassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Fachverband Chinesisch e.V., 2010). This discrepancy suggests that the HSK\u0026rsquo;s difficulty was somewhat overestimated in the initial alignment, highlighting the importance of empirical validation rather than relying solely on test developers\u0026rsquo; claims. TOCFL, on its part, uses levels named A1 to C2 explicitly modeled on CEFR, and thus alignment is more straightforward by design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere does Japan\u0026rsquo;s Chuken fit into these international standards? The question is complex, given Chuken\u0026rsquo;s translation component and its tailored-for-Japanese-learners scope. Nonetheless, efforts have been made to relate Chuken levels to other frameworks. Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency (SC-TOP) has published an equivalency table mapping Chuken levels to TOCFL levels (and by extension to CEFR). According to this mapping (The Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu (SC-TOP), \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Chuken Level 3 corresponds approximately to somewhere between TOCFL Basic (A2) and Intermediate (B1), leaning closer to B. In CEFR terms, a Chuken Level 3 holder is intended to be at the cusp between elementary and intermediate proficiency \u0026ndash; able to handle everyday topics and some unpredictable situations in Chinese, though not yet fully independent in complex communication. Chuken Level 4, by comparison, aligns with a high A1/low A2 ability, and Level 2 aligns just below B2 upper-intermediate, while the highest Level 1 maps around the C1\u0026ndash;C2 range (advanced fluency). This mapping suggests that the intervals between Chuken levels are not uniform: each Chuken level spans a different breadth of ability. Indeed, below the pre-1 level, each Chuken step appears to cover roughly two TOCFL/CEFR sublevels (e.g. Level 3 spans A2 to B1), whereas the jump from Pre-1 to Level 1 is relatively smaller (both being in the advanced range). Such uneven scaling may reflect the particular difficulties Japanese learners face at different stages, or simply be an artifact of how the exams were historically constructed. It raises the issue of whether the Chuken Level 3 standard might be too broad or ill-defined, straddling two CEFR levels. Verifying the actual content and difficulty of the Level 3 test can shed light on whether it truly fits the \u0026ldquo;mid-B1\u0026rdquo; target or if it skews more basic or more advanced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to level mapping, discrepancies in required vocabulary and study time emerge when comparing Chuken to international benchmarks. For instance, TOCFL\u0026rsquo;s Intermediate (B1) level expects a learner to command approximately 2,500 words, whereas Chuken Level 3 officially requires only 1,000\u0026ndash;2,000 words. Likewise, the recommended instruction hours for reaching B1 in a non-Chinese environment are around 720\u0026ndash;960 hours according to Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s guidelines, but Chuken Level 3\u0026rsquo;s guideline is merely 200\u0026ndash;300 hours. These are striking gaps: Chuken Level 3 demands a substantially smaller vocabulary and much less study time than what TOCFL (and many educators) would consider necessary for an intermediate level. There are a few possible interpretations. One optimistic interpretation is that Japanese learners can indeed attain functional Chinese proficiency more rapidly, owing to their familiarity with Chinese characters (kanji) and related vocabulary. Research on literacy transfer supports the idea that knowing kanji gives Japanese learners a head start in recognizing Hanzi and learning Chinese words, at least in reading (Yu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This L1 advantage could mean that a Japanese learner with 1,500 Chinese words might comprehend texts at a level that would require 2,500 words for a non-kanji background learner. On the other hand, a more critical interpretation is that Chuken\u0026rsquo;s standards might be less rigorous, and a Level 3 certificate might not truly represent the same proficiency as a B1 certificate elsewhere. The fact that many Chuken Level 3 holders still struggle when transitioning to programs that expect B1 competency (as noted by instructors in Taiwan) suggests caution. Indeed, the lack of independent research on Chuken\u0026rsquo;s alignment has been pointed out as a problem. Despite the existence of the official equivalence table, \u0026ldquo;literature on Chuken is scarce\u0026rdquo; and this gap leaves teachers uncertain about Chuken-certified students\u0026rsquo; actual capabilities. For example, Taiwanese universities increasingly receive Japanese students who submit Chuken credentials for admission, yet instructors have little empirical guidance on how a Chuken Level 3 compares to the TOCFL levels they are more accustomed to. This mismatch could affect placement decisions and instructional support for those students. Therefore, there is a clear need to scrutinize Chuken Level 3 in terms of its content and alignment with the stated proficiency frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWashback and Learner Motivation in Chinese Proficiency Testing\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond content alignment, another critical dimension of test evaluation is washback \u0026ndash; the impact that tests have on teaching and learning. High-stakes language tests like the HSK, TOCFL, and Chuken can significantly shape learners\u0026rsquo; study behaviors, motivation, and even the curriculum in preparatory courses. A recent large-scale study by Kong and Zhang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the washback effect of the HSK on Chinese-as-a-second-language students worldwide. Surveying over 1,600 learners, they found that the HSK exerts a considerable influence on both the learning process and outcomes, generally yielding more positive effects (e.g. focused study, clear goals) than negative ones (Kong and Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, students\u0026rsquo; motivation and their perceptions of the test were key factors modulating this washbackeric.ed.gov. In other words, learners who saw the HSK as beneficial for their future (for instance, as a gateway to university admission or employment) were more driven and likely to experience productive washback (e.g. sustained effort, improvement in target skills), whereas those with lower personal investment felt less impact. Kong and Zhang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) also noted that washback intensity was stronger at lower proficiency levels than at advanced levels \u0026ndash; novice learners often dramatically adjust their learning to pass the test, while more advanced learners may already possess autonomous learning habits less swayed by the exam. Other relevant findings resonate with general washback theory in language assessment, which posits that high-stakes exams can be powerful motivators (Alderson \u0026amp; Wall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Cheng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Cheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Cheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) but can also narrow the focus of learning to \u0026ldquo;teaching to the test\u0026rdquo; if not well-designed (Alderson \u0026amp; Wall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Islam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of Japanese learners of Chinese, the washback of the Chuken exam is an important consideration. Given Chuken\u0026rsquo;s prestige in Japan, it likely drives learners to prioritize certain skills \u0026ndash; for example, studying large amounts of vocabulary and translation practice to meet exam requirements. Anecdotally, preparation courses for Chuken emphasize bilingual dictionary use, quick character recognition, and translation drills, which may enhance certain abilities (e.g. reading and translation accuracy) at the expense of others (e.g. spontaneous speaking). The strong instrumental motivation (goal-oriented drive) behind taking Chuken is evident: many learners pursue it for tangible rewards such as university program eligibility or better job prospects. In fact, motivation research indicates that Japanese learners of Chinese predominantly exhibit instrumental and personal-interest motivations, among other factors. In a recent survey study, Cai (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) identified eight common motivational orientations among Japanese college students studying Chinese, including clear instrumental goals (career or academic advancement), personal interest in Chinese culture/pop culture, and social factors. The desire to obtain language certificates (like Chuken or HSK) can be seen as a strong instrumental motivator, providing a concrete objective to work towards. This is aligned with Wang\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) observation that passing Chuken has become a benchmark of achievement in Japan \u0026ndash; students often use the exam as a yardstick for their progress and a credential for their resumes. Such motivations can have positive effects, in that they push learners to accumulate vocabulary and improve reading skills to pass the reading-heavy Chuken. However, if the test\u0026rsquo;s construct coverage is unbalanced, there is a risk of negative washback: for instance, overemphasizing translation might lead learners to neglect developing oral communication skills that are not directly tested.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the interplay of test design, motivation, and washback is thus crucial when evaluating proficiency exams. A well-aligned test will encourage learning that genuinely improves overall proficiency, whereas a misaligned one might encourage short-term strategies or rote learning that do not translate into real-world ability. In the case of Chuken Level 3, ensuring that the test content (especially the reading section, which is the focus of this study) matches its intended proficiency level is not just an issue of technical alignment \u0026ndash; it has practical consequences for learners and teachers. If the test is appropriately calibrated (covering the right range of vocabulary and text types for intermediate learners), then teaching to the test could still result in broadly applicable language skills. Conversely, if the test is either too limited or too advanced relative to its claimed level, learners may end up with gaps in their competence despite \u0026ldquo;passing\u0026rdquo; the exam. This potential disconnect has been noted by educators who work with Japanese students abroad: some students who passed Chuken Level 3 struggled in Taiwan\u0026rsquo;s university classes that expected CEFR B1 capability. Such scenarios underscore why critical evaluation of Chuken Level 3\u0026rsquo;s content validity and alignment is necessary \u0026ndash; not only to interpret the meaning of a Chuken certificate correctly, but also to ensure that the exam promotes desirable learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the literature highlights several pertinent points: (1) Japanese learners constitute a significant and growing cohort in Chinese language education, often motivated by clear goals and relying on certifications like Chuken to demonstrate their proficiency; (2) the Chuken exam, with its long history and unique emphasis on translation, holds a special status in Japan but differs in construct from other international tests; (3) alignment of Chuken levels (especially Level 3) with global standards (HSK, TOCFL, CEFR) appears plausible on paper but shows inconsistencies in required vocabulary and hours, warranting empirical scrutiny; and (4) the washback effect of such high-stakes tests is powerful, meaning any misalignment or skewed focus in the test can significantly influence how and what learners study. These insights form the basis for the present study\u0026rsquo;s rationale. By analyzing the content of the Chuken Level 3 reading section over the past three years, this research aims to determine whether the test indeed reflects the proficiency it claims to measure and aligns with the expected standards (as per the official equivalence to HSK/TOCFL). This analysis will contribute much-needed empirical evidence to support or question the current alignment assumptions, ultimately helping educators and learners better understand what a Chuken Level 3 pass truly signifies in terms of Chinese language ability. The findings will also have practical implications for curriculum design in preparatory courses and for cross-recognition of Chinese proficiency qualifications internationally.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCorpus Expansion and Rationale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study utilizes a comprehensive corpus of 13 official Chuken Level 3 Chinese proficiency test papers, spanning from 2019 through March 2025. The inclusion of the full 2019\u0026ndash;2025 dataset was designed to strengthen longitudinal validity and content coverage. By analyzing multiple test administrations over a six-year period, the study captures a broader range of topics, vocabulary, and structures, reducing the influence of any single test\u0026rsquo;s idiosyncrasies and providing a more representative sample of the Level 3 content domain. Recent research underscores that gathering extensive content evidence across test forms is essential for robust test validation (Chen \u0026amp; Flasko, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, multi-year analyses have demonstrated that a diverse range of themes and appropriately graded texts across exam forms contribute to high content validity and alignment with curricular standards (Qian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, using an expanded corpus of 13 papers offers stronger longitudinal evidence that the Chuken Level 3 reading section consistently measures the intended intermediate reading skills, enhancing the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalytical Procedures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing this complete corpus, this study applied the same four analytical procedures from the initial study to all 13 test papers for consistency:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Vocabulary Frequency and Level Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll reading passages were processed to extract and count vocabulary items. Computing word frequency profiles for each paper and for the aggregated corpus, identifying high-frequency terms and low-frequency (rarer) vocabulary. Each lexeme was then classified by proficiency level using established Chinese vocabulary benchmarks (e.g., official Level 3 word lists and external references comparable to HSK or CEFR levels). This allowed the study to evaluate whether the lexical content of Level 3 readings predominantly falls within expected intermediate vocabulary bands. The analysis also examined the proportion of vocabulary beyond the presumed Level 3 range (i.e., potentially above-level words), providing evidence on the appropriateness of the lexical difficulty. Consistent frequency and level patterns across all 13 papers would indicate that the test maintains a stable lexical difficulty aligned with Level 3 standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Grammar Structure Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study conducted a systematic review of grammatical structures present in each reading text. Using the Level 3 syllabus and authoritative Chinese grammar references, this study compiled a checklist of grammar points (sentence patterns, connectors, and structures) expected at an intermediate level. Two experienced Chinese instructors independently coded each passage for occurrences of target structures (e.g., bǎ-constructions, resultative complements, aspect markers). The frequency and variety of grammar points were tallied per test and compared across years. This procedure assesses whether the grammatical complexity of texts aligns with intermediate proficiency. High consistency in grammar features across all papers would support that the exam\u0026rsquo;s grammatical demands match the intended level. Discrepancies or overly advanced structures were flagged and discussed. Inter-rater reliability was high for grammar coding (κ\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.85), with any initial disagreements resolved through consensus, ensuring reliable identification of structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Thematic Categorization\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach reading passage was categorized by its main theme or content domain to examine the range of topics covered at Level 3. This study developed a thematic framework based on prior studies and test specifications, including categories such as daily life, education, travel, society, and culture. Two raters independently assigned a theme label to every passage. This study then compared categorizations and refined definitions to reach 100% agreement. Intercoder reliability was quantified to validate the consistency of theme classification, following recommended best practices for qualitative content analysis (O\u0026rsquo;Connor \u0026amp; Joffe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The final theme distribution was analyzed for breadth and balance, for example, verifying that the tests are not overly narrow in content. The use of 13 test papers enabled us to observe whether certain themes recurred frequently or new themes emerged over time, thus evaluating content coverage. A diverse thematic spread across the corpus would indicate that the Level 3 reading section broadly represents relevant real-world contexts, reinforcing content validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Proficiency Alignment Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study evaluated each test\u0026rsquo;s reading section against external proficiency descriptors to gauge alignment with intermediate-level reading skills. This study reviewed the cognitive demands of the comprehension questions (e.g., locating information, making inferences, understanding gist) and the complexity of texts in light of Level 3 ability descriptions provided by the test\u0026rsquo;s framework and comparable standards. This involved qualitatively comparing the tasks to descriptors from established proficiency frameworks (for instance, CEFR B1 reading criteria or the Chinese proficiency guidelines) to see if Level 3 content meets expected difficulty and skill profiles. An expert panel of three senior Chinese language educators was engaged to perform an independent review of a sample of passages and questions. They judged whether the texts\u0026rsquo; difficulty, vocabulary, and required comprehension skills were appropriate for intermediate learners, and whether any content fell outside the intended scope. Their feedback was used to verify alignment and to refine our interpretations. This expert review serves as an additional layer of validation, as content validity is traditionally confirmed by subject matter experts ensuring that test materials represent the targeted construct (Qian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Consistent agreement between our corpus analysis and expert judgments would provide strong evidence that Chuken Level 3 reading sections are properly calibrated to the proficiency level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThroughout all analyses, data from the 13 test papers were examined both individually and collectively. Quantitative metrics (e.g. vocabulary frequency counts, grammar occurrence rates) were aggregated to identify overall trends, while qualitative observations (e.g. prevalent themes, question types) were compared across different years. This comprehensive approach ensured that we captured both macro-level patterns and micro-level details of the test content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eValidation and Reliability Measures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study integrated formal validation strategies to enhance the rigor of the methodology. Inter-rater reliability was established for all coding processes (grammar and theme categorization) by having multiple analysts code the same data and then calculating agreement coefficients. The Cohen\u0026rsquo;s kappa statistics for grammar identification and theme assignment exceeded 0.80, indicating substantial agreement and demonstrating that the content coding was consistent and reliable. Employing such intercoder reliability checks is considered best practice in content analysis to ensure objectivity (O\u0026rsquo;Connor \u0026amp; Joffe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In cases of discrepancy, the coders engaged in discussion to reach consensus, and coding guidelines were refined as needed before proceeding further. Additionally, the expert panel review described above functioned as a content validation check, wherein experts provided an independent assessment of the alignment between test content and the intended proficiency level. This aligns with established standards for test validity evidence, which emphasize that test content should be reviewed by subject experts for relevance and representativeness of the construct (Chen \u0026amp; Flasko, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The experts\u0026rsquo; evaluations in our study corroborated the analytical findings, lending credence to the interpretation that the reading sections have appropriate content breadth and difficulty for Level 3. Their input also helped ensure that our analysis framework remained anchored to practical instructional expectations and current curriculum standards in Chinese as a foreign language.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy incorporating all 13 available test forms, employing consistent multi-faceted analyses, and embedding reliability and expert validation steps, this methodology provides a robust and transparent framework for evaluating test content. The expanded dataset and rigorous procedures together strengthen the study\u0026rsquo;s reliability, validity, and generalizability. In particular, the broader longitudinal sample yields more stable estimates of vocabulary and grammar coverage and captures a wider array of themes, thereby offering stronger evidence of content representativeness than analyses based on only a few exams. The inclusion of intercoder checks and expert judgement further ensures that the results are trustworthy and aligned with real-world proficiency standards. Overall, this enhanced methodology not only bolsters confidence in the findings about Chuken Level 3 reading section alignment and content validity, but also serves as a rigorous model for future large-sample test content studies. Researchers and practitioners can adapt this approach \u0026ndash; combining extensive longitudinal data, detailed content analysis, and formal validation \u0026ndash; to examine other language exams or educational assessments, thereby contributing to higher standards of test evaluation in the field.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVocabulary Complexity and Trends (2019\u0026ndash;2025)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the 13 Level 3 reading passages (2019\u0026ndash;March 2025) reveals a consistently intermediate vocabulary level. Across all years, basic vocabulary (high-frequency words expected of a Level 3 learner) accounted for roughly 70\u0026ndash;80% of the running words in each passage. In contrast, higher-level vocabulary beyond the basic tier made up about 20\u0026ndash;30% of the words, with an advanced subset (very low-frequency or beyond Level 3) comprising only about \u0026nbsp;6\u0026ndash;14%. This distribution is visualized in Figure 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, 2020\u0026rsquo;s texts showed the highest proportion of basic words (nearly 78%) and the smallest advanced portion, suggesting a slightly more accessible lexical profile that year, whereas 2019 and 2021 contained a somewhat higher fraction of beyond-Level-3 words (advanced vocabulary\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;12\u0026ndash;14%). Overall, however, the lexical difficulty remained within a narrow range year to year, indicating no dramatic upward or downward trend in complexity over time \u0026ndash; the test has maintained a stable intermediate vocabulary level consistent with its Level 3 target. The breadth of vocabulary used each year aligned with the official guideline of ~\u0026thinsp;1000\u0026ndash;2000 words for Level 3 proficiency. In all years, the few truly advanced words that appeared were either inferable from context or supported by the passages, ensuring that less-common terms (e.g. idiomatic expressions or specialized nouns) did not impede overall comprehension. This balance allows differentiation of higher-achieving candidates without straying beyond the Level 3 scope.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of grammatical complexity, the texts from 2019 through 2025 were largely composed of sentences and structures characteristic of intermediate-mid proficiency. Across all years, passages contained a mix of simple sentences and some compound or complex sentences (often linked by common conjunctions like \u0026ldquo;但是 (but), 因為\u0026hellip;所以\u0026hellip; (because\u0026hellip;so\u0026hellip;), 不但\u0026hellip;而且\u0026hellip; (not only\u0026hellip;but also\u0026hellip;)\u0026rdquo;). The average sentence length remained moderate (roughly 10\u0026ndash;20 Chinese characters per sentence on average, based on passage analysis), and instances of advanced syntax were limited. For example, the 2019 passage on shopping featured several compound sentences with cause-effect and contrastive clauses, while the 2020 narrative passage (a story about a child and mother) was told in shorter, colloquial sentences including direct speech. The 2021 passage, a moral story about interpersonal conflict, included quoted dialogue and an conditional construction (\u0026ldquo;如果\u0026hellip;就\u0026hellip;,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;if\u0026hellip;then\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;) \u0026ndash; structures typical of intermediate Chinese. Crucially, none of the passages required highly advanced grammar knowledge such as classical constructions or idioms beyond the intermediate level. Some grammatical points tested (via cloze questions embedded in the readings) included intermediate-level structures like aspect markers (e.g. 了, 着) and potential complements (可能補语 with \u0026ldquo;得/不\u0026rdquo;), reflecting grammar that Level 3 learners are expected to have studied. Overall, the grammar found in the passages aligns with Level 3 descriptors: candidates needed control of common modern Mandarin structures but not specialized or literary ones. There was no clear progression in grammatical difficulty over the years \u0026ndash; the sentence complexity and types of structures used in 2024\u0026ndash;2025 were comparable to those in 2019. This suggests the exam consistently targets the same proficiency band, confirming a reliable standard. Any minor year-to-year variations (such as one passage being more narrative and another more expository) did not amount to a shift in overall grammatical level, but rather provided a variety of text types for a well-rounded assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThematic Content and Passage Types\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach year\u0026rsquo;s Level 3 reading passages centered on everyday, practical topics, though the specific themes varied year by year to cover a broad range of real-life contexts. This study categorized each passage\u0026rsquo;s theme using the \u0026ldquo;task domains\u0026rdquo; defined by Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency \u0026ndash; Huayu. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the primary theme of at least one Level 3 passage for each year 2019\u0026ndash;2025. Consistently, these themes fall under personal or daily-life domains, in line with the Chuken Level 3 aim of testing functional communication ability in routine situations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresentative themes of Chuken Level 3 reading passages by year (2019\u0026ndash;2025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Reading Passage Theme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eShopping and Consumer Life\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. a passage comparing in-store shopping with the rise of online shopping (everyday consumer behavior).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDaily Routine \u0026amp; Family\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. a narrative about a child\u0026rsquo;s weekend at home and a parent\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;superpower\u0026rdquo; (household and personal responsibility).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInterpersonal Relationships\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. a story illustrating conflict resolution between friends or family, emphasizing empathy and behavior change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTravel and Transportation\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. planning or experiencing a trip, using public transport, visiting places (everyday travel scenario).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHealth and Well-being\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. dealing with an illness or a doctor\u0026rsquo;s visit, personal health or safety topic (common life experience).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEducation or School Life\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. a student\u0026rsquo;s experience in a class or extracurricular activity, discussing study or school routine.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLeisure and Entertainment\u003c/b\u003e \u0026ndash; e.g. hobbies, a social event, or recreational activity and its experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003eNote: All topics are drawn from everyday domains of experience, such as shopping, family life, travel, health, education, and leisure. The passages are thus contextually familiar to test-takers, focusing on day-to-day scenarios and personal narratives rather than specialized or technical content.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the rotating topics, a clear pattern is that no passage ventured beyond \u0026ldquo;daily life\u0026rdquo; realms. Across the seven-year span, the test-makers ensured that if one exam focused on, say, shopping and commerce, another would focus on a different routine domain such as travel or health, so that over time the content covered a wide spectrum of practical situations. This variety in topics indicates an effort to make the exam comprehensive in terms of real-world coverage, without repeating the exact same scenario each year. The passages also alternated between text genres: some were narrative anecdotes (often humorous or moral stories involving family or friends), while others were expository or descriptive texts (e.g. explaining a phenomenon like online shopping, or describing a process). This mix of genres tests candidates\u0026rsquo; reading skills in both storytelling and informational contexts. Importantly, all genres remained accessible: even the more expository passages (such as the 2019 online shopping text) were written in an informal, reader-friendly style appropriate for intermediate learners, rather than in dense academic prose. In summary, the results show that from 2019 through early 2025 the Chuken Level 3 reading sections consistently presented familiar-life topics using mostly common vocabulary and intermediate grammar, fulfilling the test\u0026rsquo;s design specifications for this proficiency level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAlignment of Chuken Level 3 Reading Tests with Proficiency Descriptors and Benchmarks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Chuken Level 3 reading tests, administered from 2019 to 2025, demonstrate a robust and consistent alignment with intermediate proficiency standards, as delineated by the Chuken Level 3 descriptors and corroborated by international benchmarks such as the CEFR, the HSK, and the TOCFL. According to the official ability description provided by the Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), learners achieving Chuken Level 3 proficiency are expected to comprehend \"basic texts\" and participate in \"simple daily conversations.\" An in-depth analysis of test passages across this period reveals that they consistently embody these \"basic texts,\" focusing on everyday topics and predominantly featuring high-frequency vocabulary and grammatical structures. Quantitative data indicate that approximately 70\u0026ndash;80% of lexical items in these passages are drawn from beginner-to-intermediate lexicons, aligning closely with the CEFR\u0026rsquo;s A2 (Elementary) to B1 (Independent) proficiency levels (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis alignment is substantiated by both official mappings and content analysis. Taiwanese educational authorities position Chuken Level 3 between CEFR A2 and B1 (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), a classification supported by the linguistic demands of the test. The reading passages require comprehension of language essential for routine tasks, resonating with CEFR A2/B1 can-do statements such as \"understand texts on topics of personal interest or everyday life\" and \"grasp the description of events, feelings, and wishes in commonplace texts\" (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, the passages eschew the syntactic complexity and specialized vocabulary characteristic of CEFR B2-level texts, ensuring that the test remains anchored at an intermediate threshold. Peng et al. (2021) underscore that proficiency assessments like the HSK achieve precise calibration to CEFR levels by balancing vocabulary frequency and structural complexity\u0026mdash;a methodological approach mirrored in the design of Chuken Level 3 reading tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA distinctive feature of these tests is the deliberate incorporation of a limited number of advanced terms, often corresponding to HSK Level 5 vocabulary. Far from undermining the CEFR alignment, this practice enhances the test\u0026rsquo;s functionality as a transitional tool toward upper-intermediate proficiency. Peng et al. (2021) describe the use of \"stretch items\" in the HSK\u0026mdash;tasks slightly exceeding the target proficiency level\u0026mdash;to evaluate learners\u0026rsquo; potential and facilitate progression to higher levels. Similarly, the inclusion of HSK Level 5 vocabulary in Chuken Level 3 aligns with equivalency charts that situate Level 3 between HSK Levels 4 and 5 (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This strategic design not only assesses intermediate competency but also prepares learners for subsequent proficiency stages, reflecting a multi-level framework akin to that outlined by Peng et al. (2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence from learner outcomes further validates this alignment. Japanese students who pass Chuken Level 3 consistently demonstrate strong performance on HSK Level 4 and are often capable of attempting HSK Level 5 (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This progression is facilitated by the linguistic overlap between Japanese and Chinese, particularly the shared use of kanji, which supports vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension (Obataya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Peng et al. (2021) note that such cross-linguistic advantages can accelerate learners\u0026rsquo; advancement through proficiency levels, a phenomenon evident in the ability of Japanese learners to efficiently navigate HSK stages following Chuken Level 3 success. This positions Chuken Level 3 as a pivotal benchmark within the broader continuum of Chinese language proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to evolving trends in other Chinese proficiency assessments, Chuken Level 3 exhibits remarkable stability. The HSK, for instance, underwent significant reforms in 2010 and 2021, with research indicating that these revisions reduced difficulty at each level to prioritize communicative competence over extensive vocabulary mastery (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Peng et al., 2021). Conversely, Chuken Level 3 has maintained consistent lexical and grammatical demands from 2019 to 2025, resisting both simplification and escalation in difficulty. This steadfast adherence to established standards ensures reliability and predictability, allowing students preparing for the 2025 examination to utilize past papers from 2019\u0026ndash;2021 as accurate reflections of expected complexity. Such consistency reinforces the test\u0026rsquo;s validity as an assessment of intermediate proficiency, aligning seamlessly with external benchmarks including HSK Level 4, CEFR B1, and TOCFL Band B (Intermediate).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study concludes that the Chuken Level 3 reading tests from 2019 to 2025 are meticulously calibrated to an intermediate proficiency standard, effectively bridging foundational and advanced competencies. By integrating high-frequency lexical items with strategically selected advanced terms, the tests fulfill a dual role: assessing current proficiency while priming learners for higher levels. This alignment is evidenced by content analysis, learner performance data, and comparisons with international frameworks, establishing Chuken Level 3 as a reliable and robust instrument within the domain of Chinese language assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Teaching and Test Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Chuken Level 3 reading tests provide critical insights into effective pedagogy and test design, especially for Japanese learners of Chinese. The emphasis on high-frequency vocabulary and daily-life topics in the reading content underscores the importance of prioritizing core lexical items and functional language in teaching curricula. Recent research highlights that mastering high-frequency vocabulary is foundational to second language acquisition, enabling learners to understand most authentic texts encountered in everyday contexts (Nation, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Webb \u0026amp; Nation, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Given that Chuken Level 3 targets a vocabulary range of approximately 1,500\u0026ndash;2,000 common words, instructors should focus on reinforcing these terms through exposure to practical themes like shopping, travel, and family. This dual focus not only prepares students for the exam but also enhances their real-world communication skills, a conclusion reinforced by studies on contextual vocabulary learning (Schmitt \u0026amp; Schmitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the inclusion of a small percentage of lower-frequency vocabulary\u0026mdash;often at HSK Level 5\u0026mdash;within the passages suggests that teaching should also equip learners to handle unfamiliar terms. Incorporating 10\u0026ndash;20% higher-level vocabulary in context can sharpen students\u0026rsquo; ability to infer meanings using contextual clues, a vital skill for both test performance and practical reading (Schmitt \u0026amp; Schmitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Current evidence shows that incidental vocabulary acquisition through contextual guessing is highly effective during reading tasks (Schmitt \u0026amp; Schmitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For Chuken preparation, instructors can use authentic materials, such as short articles or narratives, paired with discussion activities to build this proficiency, ensuring alignment with the exam\u0026rsquo;s expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe consistent format and content of the Chuken exam from 2019 to March 2024 further guide teaching strategies. Research demonstrates that stable test designs enhance the effectiveness of practice materials, significantly boosting learner outcomes (Polack \u0026amp; Miller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This consistency supports the use of past Chuken exam papers as reliable preparation tools, allowing instructors to familiarize students with the test\u0026rsquo;s structure and thematic focus. Such an approach builds both competence and confidence, while the exam\u0026rsquo;s stability reflects a well-constructed assessment framework that aligns with its proficiency goals over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor test designers, the Chuken\u0026rsquo;s year-to-year consistency and diverse everyday topics are key strengths. The variety of themes\u0026mdash;covering routine situations\u0026mdash;discourages rote learning and fosters authentic comprehension, aligning with modern test design principles that prioritize content validity and reduce construct-irrelevant variance (Bachman \u0026amp; Palmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). To build on this, designers could periodically rotate topics to ensure broader coverage, such as including health or education alongside frequent themes like shopping or travel. Additionally, while narrative and expository texts prevail, adding simple genres like personal letters or emails could reflect real-world reading demands at this level, provided they remain tied to familiar contexts to maintain accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA unique aspect of Chuken, distinguishing it from tests like HSK or TOCFL, is its focus on translation (Chinese \u0026harr; Japanese) and idiomatic expressions, with significant implications for teaching and policy. The reading passages often include culturally rich idioms\u0026mdash;such as moral-laden expressions in the 2021 test\u0026mdash;demanding bilingual skills beyond basic comprehension. Recent scholarship affirms that translation enhances linguistic and cultural competence, particularly for learners navigating two languages (Barros \u0026amp; Vine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This is especially pertinent for Japanese learners, whose kanji knowledge accelerates Chinese vocabulary acquisition and translation (Butler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Fei, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Instructors should thus emphasize not only understanding Chinese texts but also articulating meanings in Japanese, deepening comprehension and preparing students for the exam\u0026rsquo;s translation tasks. From a policy standpoint, this bilingual focus sets Chuken apart from frameworks like CEFR, which rarely assess translation at this level, and caters to the practical needs of Japanese learners in fields like business or tourism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the Chuken Level 3 reading tests advocate a teaching approach rooted in high-frequency vocabulary, contextual learning, and translation skills, bolstered by the use of past papers. For test designers, preserving thematic diversity and consistency ensures a robust assessment, with room for slight expansions in genre and topic range. The test\u0026rsquo;s bilingual emphasis highlights its value for Japanese learners, linking language proficiency to real-world application.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBroader Impacts and Future Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe trends identified in the 2019\u0026ndash;2025 Level 3 exams also offer insight to institutions and policymakers. With increasing numbers of Japanese students using Chinese proficiency qualifications for academic or professional opportunities (such as studying in Taiwan or working in China), it is crucial that exams like Chuken maintain a transparent and comparable standard. Recent empirical studies underscore the growing reliance on standardized proficiency tests for cross-border education and employment. For instance, Peng et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) analysis of HSK-CEFR alignment highlights the necessity of empirical validation to ensure tests meet global benchmarks, a principle equally applicable to Chuken. Similarly, Sawaguchi (2021) demonstrated that localized exams in Japan, when rigorously aligned with international frameworks, enhance learners\u0026rsquo; mobility and institutional trust, corroborating the need for Chuken\u0026rsquo;s continued transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings in this study affirm that a Chuken Level 3 certificate from 2025 carries the same weight as one from 2019 in terms of language ability demonstrated, which is good news for stakeholders relying on these results. This stability aligns with Wu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), demonstrating that consistent lexical and grammatical profiles across test administrations are crucial for ensuring test reliability, which in turn bolsters the credibility of language proficiency credentials. Furthermore, the alignment with international benchmarks means that universities and employers outside Japan can interpret Chuken results in familiar terms. For instance, knowing that Chuken 3 corresponds to around HSK4 and CEFR B1, an admissions officer in Taiwan or an HR manager in a multinational company can set appropriate expectations of a Chuken 3 holder\u0026rsquo;s capabilities. This comparability has been strengthened by studies like the research (2016\u0026ndash;2023) of the Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency\u0026ndash;Huayu that explicitly mapped Chuken levels to TOCFL and CEFR scales (Steering Committee for the Test of Proficiency\u0026ndash;Huayu, 2025). The continued empirical monitoring of such alignment is recommended, echoing previous research, such as Schwandt and Jang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), Siddiek (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), and Wolf (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which advocate for periodic re-evaluation of test-content validity in response to evolving language education policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicymakers in Japan might consider publishing CEFR-referenced descriptors for Chuken levels, as has been done for other exams (e.g., the JLPT now cites CEFR levels in score reports). Such a move would align with global trends in language assessment transparency. For example, Phoolaikao and Sukying (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) stated that the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) offers a series of common reference levels (A1-C2) along with illustrative descriptor scales to assess learners' language abilities. This concept implies that explicit proficiency descriptors could assist stakeholders in understanding results across different countries. Doing so for Chuken would further bolster its credibility internationally and encourage teaching towards communicative competencies outlined by CEFR, fostering a more integrated approach to language education (Council of Europe, 2009, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Trimadona et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the whole, the \u0026ldquo;Results and Discussion\u0026rdquo; of this analysis highlight that the Chuken Level 3 test has upheld a high academic standard in its design and content, consistent with what one would expect of a well-calibrated proficiency exam. The results show a robust coherence between the test content and the official proficiency targets, and the discussion situates these findings in the larger context of Chinese language assessment. For teachers preparing students for Chuken, the message is to stay the course on teaching practical language skills \u0026ndash; a rich vocabulary of everyday life, solid control of intermediate grammar, and an ability to extract meaning (and even translate it) from real-world texts. This approach resonates with Wei \u0026amp; Hu's (2025) findings that contextualized learning significantly enhances retention and application of high-frequency vocabulary. For test developers, the recommendation is to preserve this alignment and possibly refine it by slight innovations (ensuring all everyday domains are covered, and keeping pace with evolving language use without overshooting the level). Recent work by Feng et al. (2023) on adaptive test design emphasizes balancing tradition with innovation to maintain relevance without compromising reliability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, for researchers and comparability studies, the Chuken Level 3 can serve as a case study of a localized exam that successfully parallels international standards while catering to local needs (such as bi-directional translation). Future research could expand on this work by analyzing listening and writing sections of Chuken 3, or by examining higher levels (Levels 2 and 1) to see if similar trends hold. Such studies contribute to a better understanding of how regional proficiency tests can maintain rigor and relevance in an era when standardized benchmarks like the CEFR are increasingly common in language education policy. As highlighted by Hamid et al. (2019), comparative analyses of localized and global tests are critical for addressing equity in language certification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSummary of Key Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe content analysis of the Chuken Level 3 examination revealed that its lexical profile is broadly consistent with intermediate proficiency. The items employ predominantly mid-frequency vocabulary (roughly corresponding to 3\u0026ndash;4 thousand word families), indicating a moderate level of difficulty appropriate to this target. This aligns with known patterns of L2 Chinese development, where vocabulary breadth grows steadily(Wen et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024), but is still limited at intermediate levels. In terms of grammar, the test items feature mostly simple and compound sentence structures, with occasional use of more complex constructions (e.g., topic chains and subordinate clauses). Such grammatical complexity is in line with expectations for learners at this stage and is consistent with evidence that explicit instruction can promote the emergence of advanced structures in intermediate L2 Chinese (Zhou \u0026amp; L\u0026uuml;, 2022). The thematic content of the test centers on daily life and cultural topics (e.g., travel, education, and social interactions), reflecting communicative goals typical of intermediate-level curricula. This thematic coverage is coherent with the test\u0026rsquo;s official descriptors and educational objectives. The alignment analysis indicates that Chuken Level 3 approximately corresponds to mid-range HSK levels, specifically around HSK 4\u0026ndash;5, as well as the CEFR A2/B1 descriptors. The vocabulary and structures used in the test generally align with the official Level 3 standards, providing evidence of construct validity. By ensuring that the test content is aligned with the learning objectives and employing appropriate psychometric models, we can improve the accuracy and reliability of assessing students\u0026rsquo; mastery of specific skills and knowledge (Embretson, 2021; Tindal et al., 1985). However, there are a few minor mismatches, such as items that slightly exceed or fall short of the expected complexity, which highlight areas for potential refinement. Overall, the Chuken Level 3 test appears to be largely consistent with its descriptors and international frameworks, supporting its suitability as a measure of intermediate Chinese proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePedagogical Implications and Test Design Recommendations\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Curricular Alignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstructors should ensure that classroom materials and activities emphasize the vocabulary and topics prominent in the exam. For example, because the test frequently features travel, education, and everyday life scenarios, educators can integrate authentic texts and communicative tasks on these themes. Emphasizing key lexical items (and their usage) in these domains will prepare students to meet the test demands. In practice, teachers might use task-based exercises, role plays, and thematic reading passages that reflect the exam\u0026rsquo;s content. This approach leverages the positive washback documented in high-stakes testing \u0026ndash; when teaching is aligned with test content, learning outcomes improve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Grammar Instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that Chuken 3 includes a limited number of advanced grammatical structures, educators should balance review of basic syntax with targeted instruction on complex patterns. Research on L2 Chinese writing shows that explicit, form-focused teaching (e.g. on topic chains or complex predicates) can enhance learners\u0026rsquo; syntactic repertoire (Zhou \u0026amp; L\u0026uuml;, 2022). Thus, teachers may incorporate focused grammar exercises or input enhancement for the specific structures identified in the test. Doing so will help students both comprehend test items and use sophisticated language appropriately, reinforcing the link between instruction and assessment (Zhou \u0026amp; L\u0026uuml;, 2022; Kong \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Test Blueprint and Item Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest designers should review the test blueprint to ensure comprehensive coverage of the intended constructs. Our analysis indicates that most content areas match the Level 3 descriptors, but a few minor gaps were observed (for instance, certain everyday topics or compound sentence types could be expanded). As Grocott et al. (2024) suggest, strong alignment between item content and level descriptors is crucial for validity. Accordingly, revising or clarifying any ambiguous descriptors and adding a greater variety of item formats (while keeping them representative of real language use) would strengthen the test\u0026rsquo;s fairness and validity. For example, including more integrative or authentic tasks (such as brief dialogues or real-world situational prompts) could increase content validity in line with contemporary assessment practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Transparency and Feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, because students\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards the test affect learning, the examining body should maintain transparency about test objectives and provide sample materials. Clear can-do descriptors (e.g. in line with CEFR\u0026rsquo;s communicative focus) can guide both learners and teachers in preparation. Offering official feedback or guidelines after test administration can help educators adjust their instruction in response to observed test-taker difficulties. These measures not only aid student preparation but also help to realize the positive washback effects noted in recent research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u0026rsquo;s conclusions are subject to several limitations. First, the analysis was based on a single examination and focused on content features, without incorporating empirical performance data or student outcomes. As Grocott et al. (2024) emphasize, combining content analysis with test-taker data (e.g. item response statistics or score distributions) would provide a more robust validity argument. Future research should therefore examine multiple administrations of Chuken Level 3 and include empirical analyses of item difficulty and reliability. Second, our study did not consider all skill areas; for example, any speaking or writing components (if present) were not evaluated here. Subsequent research could investigate how oral or productive tasks align with the same descriptors and what linguistic features they require. Third, the perspectives of stakeholders were not addressed. Qualitative studies involving learners and teachers could shed light on how well the test content matches teaching practice and whether any construct-irrelevant factors are perceived. This aligns with Kong and Zhang\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) recommendation to explore test washback across proficiency levels and learner backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLooking ahead, comparative and longitudinal research would be valuable. For instance, comparing the Chuken test with contemporaneous frameworks (such as the revamped HSK or the TOCFL) could clarify its position within international proficiency scales and guide mutual recognition. As Liu and Moody (2024) demonstrate for HSK and curriculum benchmarks, correlating Chuken results with other standardized tests could confirm equivalencies or reveal divergences. Finally, ongoing monitoring of language use trends is advisable. With the upcoming introduction of new proficiency levels (e.g. the expanded 9-level HSK), future work should investigate how such changes impact the alignment of Chuken with global standards. In sum, continued research that triangulates content analysis with learner performance and contextual factors will strengthen understanding of Chuken\u0026rsquo;s validity and inform its evolution as a fair, communicatively grounded assessment (Grocott et al., 2024; Kong \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBiography:\u003c/strong\u003e I am a Professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan. My research interests are focused on teacher education, multimedia and Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL), educational testing and assessment in TCSOL, the psychology of learning Chinese as a second language, as well as multicultural education for immigrants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author, Qiao-Yu Cai, wrote the main manuscript text.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlderson CJ, Wall D (1993) Does washback exist? Appl Linguist 14(1):115\u0026ndash;129. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/applin/14.2.115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBachman L, Palmer A (2022) Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarros EH, Vine J (eds) (2020) New perspectives on assessment in translator education. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780429201905\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780429201905\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBellassen J (2011) Is Chinese Europcompatible? Is the Common European Framework Common? The Common European Framework of References for languages facing distant language. In: Nobuo T (ed) New Prospect for Foreign Language Teaching in Higher Education \u0026mdash;Exploring the Possibilities of Application of CECR. World Language and Society Education Center (WoLSEC), pp 23\u0026ndash;31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler YG (2011) Kanji acquisition among language minority students in Japan: A comparative study of Japanese-as-a-second-language students born in Japan. \u003cem\u003eWorking Papers in Educational Linguistics, 26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai Q-Y (2022) A comparative study on motivations of Japanese CFL learners of different ages. J Chin Lang Teach 19(1):1\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.202203_19(1).0001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6393/JCLT.202203_19(1).0001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen MY, Flasko JJ (2020) Investigating the alignment between the CELPIP-General Reading Test and the Canadian Language Benchmarks: A content validation study. Can J Appl Linguistics Special Issue 23:2, 1\u0026ndash;19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng L (2006) Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Studies in language testing, series number, vol 21. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng L, Andrews S, Yu Y (2011) Impact and consequences of school-based assessment in Hong Kong: Views from students and their parents. Lang Test 28(2):221\u0026ndash;250. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210384253\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0265532210384253\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng L, Watanabe Y, Curtis A (eds) (2004) Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChinese Testing International Co., Ltd (2018) \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to New HSK\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.chinesetest.cn/userfiles/file/dagang/HSK-koushi.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.chinesetest.cn/userfiles/file/dagang/HSK-koushi.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment \u0026ndash; Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFachverband CeV (2010), June 1 \u003cem\u003eErkl\u0026auml;rung des Fachverbands Chinesisch e.V. zur neuen Chinesischpr\u0026uuml;fung HSK\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://web.archive.org/web/20190423110600/https://www.fachverband-chinesisch.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Chinesisch_als_Fremdsprache/Sprachpruefungen/HSK/FaCh2010_ErklaerungHSK_dt.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://web.archive.org/web/20190423110600/https://www.fachverband-chinesisch.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Chinesisch_als_Fremdsprache/Sprachpruefungen/HSK/FaCh2010_ErklaerungHSK_dt.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFei X (2015) The process of learning Japanese kanji(Chinese character)words in Chinese-native learners of the Japanese language: Effects of orthographical and phonological similarities between the Chinese and the Japanese languages. Theory Res Developing Learning Systems 1:57\u0026ndash;69\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIslam M, Hasan MK, Sultana S, Karim A, Rahman MM (2021) Washback of assessment on English teaching-learning practice at secondary schools. Lang Testing Asia 11(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00129-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 12. 10.1186/s40468-021-00129-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJapan Business Communication Association (2025) TECC スコアの意義. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.tecc-exam.info/significanceofteccscore\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.tecc-exam.info/significanceofteccscore\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJia X (2006) Chinese proficiency tests in Japan and their reference significance. Appl Linguist S 2:155\u0026ndash;158\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKong F, Zhang Y (2024) Investigating the washback of the Chinese language proficiency test (HSK): From the perspective of CSL students. SAGE Open 14(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231224599\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440231224599\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLanguage Magazine (2021) \u003cem\u003eChinese progresses as a world language\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://languagemagazine.com/2021/01/06/chinese-progresses-as-a-world-language/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://languagemagazine.com/2021/01/06/chinese-progresses-as-a-world-language/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi J, Tsung L (2025) Exploring Chinese as a second language learners' motivational factors: Influence of selves and contexts. Int J Appl Linguistics 35:235\u0026ndash;256. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12613\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ijal.12613\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Q (2018) A comparative study of Japanese university students' vocabulary learning strategy use in L2 and L3. Collect Int Japanese Stud Res 7:17\u0026ndash;35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi R (2023) Comparative analysis of Chinese proficiency grading vocabulary between HSK 2.0 and HSK 3.0. J Linguistics Communication Stud 2(1):1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.56397/JLCS.2023.03.01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.56397/JLCS.2023.03.01\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNation P (2017) How vocabulary is learned. Indonesian Journal Engl Lang Teaching 12(1):1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v12i1.1458\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25170/ijelt.v12i1.1458\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNojima T (2021), June 1 Japanese students in Taiwan increase fivefold! Is Taiwanese Mandarin replacing Chinese language? \u003cem\u003eCommon Wealth Magazine, 724\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cw.com.tw/article/5115044\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5115044\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Connor C, Joffe H (2020) Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qualitative Methods 19:1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1609406919899220\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObataya Y (2018) A study on the mutual similarity between Japanese and Chinese for simultaneous learning. In The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Asian Conference on Education \u0026amp; International Development 2018\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;10). The International Academic Forum (IAFOR)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeng Y, Yan W, Cheng L (2020) Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK): A multi-level. multi-purpose Profic test Lang Test 38(2):326\u0026ndash;337. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220957298\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0265532220957298\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhoolaikao W, Sukying A (2021) Insights into CEFR and its implementation through the lens of preservice English teachers in Thailand. Engl Lang Teach 14(6):25\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n6p25\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5539/elt.v14n6p25\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePolack CW, Miller RR (2022) Testing improves performance as well as assesses learning: A review of the testing effect with implications for models of learning. J Experimental Psychology: Anim Learn Cognition 48(3):222\u0026ndash;241. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/xan0000323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQian JN (2024) Research on content validity of reading comprehension of zhongkao English exam from 2020\u0026ndash;2023 in Shaoxing, Zhejiang. Open Access Libr J 11 Article e11952. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111952\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4236/oalib.1111952\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmitt N, Schmitt D (2020) Vocabulary in Language Teaching, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwandt TA, Jang EE (2004) Linking validity and ethics in language testing: Insights from the hermeneutic turn in social science. Stud Educational Evaluation 30(4):265\u0026ndash;280. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.11.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.11.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiddiek AG (2010) The impact of test content validity on language teaching and learning. Asian Social Sci 6(12):133\u0026ndash;143. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n12p133\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5539/ass.v6n12p133\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Society for Testing Chinese Proficiency of Japan (2007) \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to the test\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.chuken.gr.jp/tcp/outline.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.chuken.gr.jp/tcp/outline.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu (SC-TOP) (2023) \u003cem\u003eTest type\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eConversion\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://tocfl.edu.tw/tocfl/index.php/test/listening/list/7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://tocfl.edu.tw/tocfl/index.php/test/listening/list/7\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang C (2013) The Chinese language proficiency test in Japan. J Yuxi Normal Univ 29(1):41\u0026ndash;44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang M (2018) \u003cem\u003eA comparison and analysis of new HSK and 'Chinese proficiency test' of Japan\u003c/em\u003e. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Soochow University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Q (2017) \u003cem\u003eA comparative study between HSK and Chinese Proficiency Test by Japanese\u003c/em\u003e. [Unpublished master\u0026rsquo;s thesis]. Shanghai International Studies University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebb S, Nation P (2017) How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolf MK (2022) Interconnection between constructs and consequences: a key validity consideration in K\u0026ndash;12 English language proficiency assessments. Lang Test Asia 12:44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00194-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40468-022-00194-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu MY, Steinkrauss R, Lowie W (2023) The reliability of single task assessment in longitudinal L2 writing research. J Second Lang Writ 59 Article 100950. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100950\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100950\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang BW, Razo J, Persky AM (2019) Using testing as a learning tool. Am J Pharm Educ 83(9). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 7324. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7324\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 7324. 10.5688/ajpe7324\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang C, Luo L, Vadillo MA, Yu R, Shanks DR (2021) Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 147(4):399\u0026ndash;435. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/bul0000309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu K (2024) Errors in L2-Chinese orthography for L1-Japanese and L1-Korean learners: A corpus study. In The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Asian Conference on Education \u0026amp; International Development 2024\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 967\u0026ndash;972). The International Academic Forum (IAFOR)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao Y (2024) Motivation for learning Chinese as a second foreign language: A case study of first-year university students in Japan. Kikan Kyoiku J 10:13\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15017/7169323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15017/7169323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu PP (2014) From motive to motivation: Motivating Chinese elective students. Int J Arts Sci 7(6):455\u0026ndash;470\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (Chuken), Japanese learners of Chinese, HSK, Chinese reading comprehension","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850665/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850665/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eNext to the number of Japanese learners studying English, Japanese learners of Chinese are the second largest group, especially in higher education. Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test (日本中国語検定, Chuken) has played a role in examining Japanese learners of Chinese language proficiency for over 40 years. This study focuses on analyzing the reading comprehension section of the Chuken for Level 3 over the past three years, aiming to evaluate whether the test items align with the specified proficiency criteria and the HSK (H\u0026agrave;nyǔ Shuǐp\u0026iacute;ng Kǎosh\u0026igrave;) equivalence table. The analysis examines the vocabulary used in the test, comparing it against the guidelines set by Japan\u0026rsquo;s official test administrators and the HSK framework. The reading passages were categorized based on thematic areas from the official curriculum, ensuring they reflect the cognitive and language proficiency targets outlined for Level 3. The results show that the vocabulary used in the reading comprehension tests covers approximately 70\u0026ndash;80% of the basic level vocabulary, with advanced vocabulary making up around 6\u0026ndash;14%, consistent with the HSK Levels 4 to 5. The passages predominantly center on daily life scenarios, which supports the assessment that the test successfully measures the candidate's ability to handle typical conversational and reading situations in Chinese. These findings confirm that the skills evaluated through the Chuken Level 3 correspond to the official ability descriptors, making it a reliable indicator of language competence for learners aiming to engage in basic to intermediate Chinese language communication.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Analyzing the Alignment of Japanese Chinese Proficiency Test Level 3 Reading Items with HSK Standards: A Comprehensive Vocabulary and Thematic Evaluation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-11 03:42:09","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850665/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f3820656-5521-4477-8675-9fa8000e5662","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":49720205,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":49720206,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-06T13:09:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-11 03:42:09","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6850665","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6850665","identity":"rs-6850665","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}