Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

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 Brown, A.
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?

Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency

Annie Brown

The University of Melbourne, a.brown{at}unimelb.edu.au

Whilst claims to validity for conversational oral interviews as measures of nontest conversational skills are based largely on the unpredictable or impromptu nature of the test interaction, ironically this very feature is also likely to lead to a lack of standardisation across interviews, and hence potential unfairness. This article addresses the question of variation amongst interviewers in the ways they elicit demonstrations of communicative ability and the impact of this variation on candidate performance and, hence, raters’ perceptions of candidate ability. Through a discourse analysis of two interviews involving the same candidate with two different interviewers, it illustrates how intimately the interviewer is implicated in the construction of candidate proficiency. The interviewers differed with respect to the ways in which they structured sequences of topical talk, their questioning techniques, and the type of feedback they provided. An analysis of verbal reports produced by some of the raters confirmed that these differences resulted in different impressions of the candidate’s ability: in one interview the candidate was considered to be more ‘effective’ and ‘willing’ as a communicator than in the other. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for rater training and test design.

Language Testing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1-25 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532203lt242oa
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
 ELT JHome page
F. Kucuk and J. Walters
How good is your test?
ELT J, October 1, 2009; 63(4): 332 - 341.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
Z. Gan, C. Davison, and L. Hamp-Lyons
Topic Negotiation in Peer Group Oral Assessment Situations: A Conversation Analytic Approach
Applied Linguistics, September 1, 2009; 30(3): 315 - 334.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Taylor and G. Wigglesworth
Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 325 - 339.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Brooks
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 341 - 366.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Davis
The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 367 - 396.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. May
Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 397 - 421.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. M. Ducasse and A. Brown
Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 423 - 443.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
S. Macqueen and L. Harding
Test review: Review of the Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE) Speaking Test
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 467 - 475.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
G. J. Ockey
The effects of group members' personalities on a test taker's L2 group oral discussion test scores
Language Testing, April 1, 2009; 26(2): 161 - 186.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ELT JHome page
F. Nakatsuhara
Inter-interviewer variation in oral interview tests
ELT J, July 1, 2008; 62(3): 266 - 275.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Huhta, P. Kalaja, and A. Pitkanen-Huhta
Discursive construction of a high-stakes test: the many faces of a test-taker
Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 326 - 350.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
T. Lumley and B. O'Sullivan
The effect of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking
Language Testing, October 1, 2005; 22(4): 415 - 437.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Brown
Book Review: Testing second language speaking
Language Testing, April 1, 2005; 22(2): 235 - 241.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
M. Chalhoub-Deville
Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends
Language Testing, October 1, 2003; 20(4): 369 - 383.
[Abstract] [PDF]