Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Salaberry, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Revising the revised format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview

Rafael Salaberry

Rice University, salaberry{at}rice.edu

Since the early 1980s proponents of proficiency examinations such as ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) have been criticized for the low validity and reliability of tests such as the OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview). Despite these strong concerns, the most recent edition of the ACTFL Tester Training Manual (Swender et al., 1999) does not reveal substantial changes from the previous manual published in (Buck et al., 1986). While a complete elimination of proficiency tests such as the ACTFL-OPI may be neither feasible nor necessary, some practical changes may be appropriate. In this article I describe minor structural changes of the ACTFL-OPI framework that would not eliminate the practical benefits of a proficiency test, but which address substantial concerns related to the validity and reliability of the instrument.

Language Testing, Vol. 17, No. 3, 289-310 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/026553220001700301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Van Moere
Validity evidence in a university group oral test
Language Testing, October 1, 2006; 23(4): 411 - 440.
[Abstract] [PDF]