ERIC Identifier: ED447729 Publication Date: 2000-12-00
Author: Malone, Margaret Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics Washington DC.
Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews: Recent Developments.
The simulated oral proficiency interview (SOPI) is a performance-based,
tape-mediated speaking test. It follows the general structure of the oral
proficiency interview (OPI) used by government agencies and the American Council
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages to measure speaking proficiency. Whereas
the OPI is a face-to-face interview, the SOPI relies on audio taped instructions
and a test booklet to elicit language from the examinee. Unlike many semi-direct
tests, the SOPI contextualizes all tasks to ensure that they appear as authentic
The prototypical SOPI follows the same four phases as the OPI: warm-up, level
checks, probes, and wind-down. The warm-up phase, designed to ease examinees
into the test format, begins with simple personal background questions posed on
the tape in a simulated encounter with a native speaker of the target language.
The examinee responds to each warm-up question during a brief pause on the tape
after each question. The next phase of the test consists of tasks similar to the
level check and probe phases of the OPI. These tasks assess the examinee's
ability to perform different functions at the ACTFL Intermediate, Advanced, and
Superior levels. (For more information on the ACTFL Guidelines, see Stansfield,
1992.) The prototypical SOPI includes picture-based tasks that allow examinees
to perform tasks such as asking questions, giving directions based on a simple
map, describing a place, or narrating a sequence of events based on the
Other SOPI tasks require examinees to speak about selected topics or perform
in real-life situations. These tasks assess the examinee's ability to manage
functions at the Advanced and Superior levels, including apologizing, describing
a process, supporting an opinion, and speaking persuasively. Because these tasks
may include functions too complex for lower-level examinees, the test may be
HOW IS THE SOPI ADMINISTERED?
SOPI administration materials
include a master test tape, which includes the audio tape of all test
instructions and tasks; an examinee response tape on which the examinee records
his or her responses; and the test booklet, which includes all test tasks except
the warm-up. Directions to all tasks are presented in English in the test
booklet and on the test tape. The directions provide the context of each
speaking task, including whom the examinee is addressing, what the situation is,
why the speaking task is being performed, and any other relevant information.
After listening to and reading the directions, the examinee hears a native
speaker of the target language make a statement or ask a question relevant to
the task described. Then the examinee performs the task by responding to the
native speaker prompt.
The prototypical SOPI ends with a brief wind-down consisting of simple
questions in the target language. After the SOPI is completed, the examinee
response tape is scored by trained raters who apply the ACTFL Guidelines. Scores
range from Novice-Mid to Superior.
RESEARCH ON THE SOPI
In several studies involving different
test development teams and different languages, the SOPI proved to be a valid
and reliable surrogate to the OPI. Clark and Li (1986) developed four forms of
the SOPI in Chinese. Once developed, the four forms of the test were
administered, along with an OPI, to 32 students of Chinese at two universities.
Each test was scored by two raters, and the scores on the two tests were
correlated. The results showed a correlation of .93 between the SOPI and the
Stansfield et al. (1990) reported on the development of three forms of a SOPI
in Portuguese. This test and an OPI were administered to 30 adults at four
institutions. Two raters scored each test. In this study, a correlation of .93
was found between the SOPI and the OPI. In addition, the SOPI proved to be
slightly more reliable and easier to rate than the OPI.
Shohamy, Gordon, Kenyon, and Stansfield (1989) reported on a Center for
Applied Linguistics/University of Tel Aviv project that developed and validated
the Hebrew Speaking Test. Two forms of this SOPI were developed for use at
Hebrew language schools for immigrants to Israel, and two forms were developed
for use in North America. The first two forms, along with an OPI, were
administered to 20 foreign students at the University of Tel Aviv, and the two
North American forms were administered to 20 students of Hebrew at U.S.
universities. The correlation between the OPI and the Israeli version of the
SOPI was .89, while the correlation for the U.S. version was 94.
Subsequently, Stansfield and Kenyon (1992, 1993) described the development
and validation of SOPIs in Indonesian and Hausa. In the Indonesian study, the
correlation with the OPI for 16 adult learners was 95. Because no
ACTFL-certified tester was available to conduct OPIs, two Hausa speakers were
trained in applying the ACTFL scale and subsequently used this training to score
the tests. Raters showed high inter-rater reliability (.91) in scoring the test.
In more recent research (Kenyon & Tschirner, 2000), 90% of the students
studied received the same ACTFL rating on an OPI in German and a German SOPI.
SOPIs are currently available in Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hausa,
Hebrew, Indonesian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.
As these tests have been operationalized,
the need for trained raters to score them has been addressed through live rater
training workshops as well as through the development of self-instructional
rater training kits and a CD-ROM-based training program. Rater trainer kits are
available in Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, and Russian for language
instructors who would like to administer and rate the SOPI themselves. For each
language, the Rater Training Kit consists of a manual, a workbook, and a
reference guide for scoring; three cassette tapes; and the SOPI testing
materials. Research on the self-instructional rater training kits suggests that
they are an effective way to acquire rating skills without participating in live
rater training (Kenyon, 1997). Further research has been conducted into the
usefulness of the German Rater Training Kit in learning to apply the ACTFL
Guidelines (Norris, 1997). In addition, the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)
is currently developing multi-media rater training programs (MMRTP) that include
a CD-ROM with interactive self-instructional materials from the Rater Training
Kits, practice exercises and quizzes, speech samples for practice rating; SOPI
testing materials; and a reference guide. The MMRTP will be available in early
2001 in Spanish, French, and German. All rater training kits and the MMRTP have
been updated to incorporate the revised 1999 ACTFL Speaking Proficiency
Because the SOPI format is flexible, it can be
and often is tailored to the desired level of examinee proficiency and for
specific examinee age groups, backgrounds, and professions. For several of the
SOPIs developed by CAL, a lower-level version of the test can be created by
administering only the first part. Such a version is available for rating
proficiency from the Novice-Mid to Advanced levels.
The SOPI format has been used by various institutions in the development of
tests to meet their specific needs. For example, the University of Minnesota and
the Minnesota Department of Education developed a SOPI in which seven tasks are
combined to follow one integrated story line or theme (Chaloub-Deville, 1997).
Because this test focuses on examinees at the Novice-High to Intermediate-Low
levels, it includes only Intermediate-level tasks.
Another SOPI with a specific focus is the Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT)
developed by CAL. A score of Advanced on the TOPT is required by all who seek
teaching certification in Texas in French, Spanish, or bilingual education. This
full-length test consists of 15 tasks and is taken by examinees at the
Intermediate-Mid level or higher. Practice tests are available for the French
and Spanish TOPT.
Many universities and school systems have incorporated a SOPI focus into
their testing program. A handbook on designing SOPIs was developed to assist
such programs in developing their own SOPIs (Stansfield, 1996). Currently,
Stanford University uses a SOPI for diagnosis and placement of students into
foreign language classes. In addition, the SOPI is administered to all students
at the end of the third quarter to ensure that they meet the oral proficiency
standard in their language.
The SOPI format has many practical benefits. Any teacher, language lab
technician or aide can administer the SOPI. This has proved to be an advantage
in locations where a trained interviewer is not available or in languages that
lack ACTFL-certified testers. In addition, the SOPI can be administered
simultaneously to a group of examinees by one administrator, whereas a live
interview can only be administered individually. Thus, the SOPI may be
preferable when many examinees need to be tested in a short time frame.
The SOPI may also offer psychometric advantages in terms of reliability and
validity, particularly in standardized testing situations. The SOPI offers the
same quality of interview to all examinees, and all examinees respond to the
same questions. By recording the test for later scoring, it is possible to
ensure that examinees will be rated by the most reliable raters and can be rated
under controlled conditions. Raters who have scored both a live interview and a
SOPI report that it is often easier to score a SOPI. This may be due in part to
the SOPI's ability to produce a longer speech sample and to allow each examinee
to respond to the same questions. Therefore, distinctions in proficiency may
appear more obvious to the rater.
Just as advances in technology have led to
the development of the MMRTP to help train raters, new and better technologies
have lead to research on new approaches to semi-direct testing. CAL conducted a
2-year study on the development of the Computerized Oral Proficiency Interview,
or COPI. Like the SOPI, the COPI relies on taped and written directions to
elicit language from the examinee. Unlike the SOPI, however, the COPI is adapted
to the examinee's proficiency level. On the COPI, the examinee and the computer
cooperate to produce a speech sample ratable according to the ACTFL Guidelines
(Malabonga & Kenyon, 1999). The COPI allows examinees some choice in the
difficulty level of the tasks presented to them. To ensure adequate probing and
level checking, however, examinees have control over only a portion of the tasks
on the test. This means that the examinees select some tasks they believe are
appropriate to their own level of speaking ability, and the computer program
includes tasks at other levels to ensure that adequate level checking and
probing occurs. Because the COPI was developed principally as a research study,
CAL has not yet operationalized this approach to testing speaking proficiency.
This discussion suggests that the SOPI is a
reliable, easily administered test of speaking performance. The development of
the COPI and MMRTP suggest that applying advances in technology to both test
administration and rater training have the potential to further improve
semi-direct approaches to performance testing.
Chaloub-Deville, M. (1997). The Minnesota
Articulation Project and its proficiency-based assessments. "Foreign Language
Annals, 30," 492-502.
Clark, J.L.D., & Li, Y.C. (1986). "Development, validation, and
dissemination of a proficiency-based test of speaking ability in Chinese and an
associated assessment model for other less commonly taught languages."
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Kenyon, D. (1997). Further research on the efficacy of rater self-training.
In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio, & S. Luoma (Eds.), "Current
developments and alternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96"
(pp. 257-273). Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla.
Kenyon, D.M., & Tschirner, E. (2000). The rating of direct and
semi-direct oral proficiency interviews: Comparing performance at lower
proficiency levels. "Modern Language Journal, 84," 85-101.
Malabonga, V.A., & Kenyon, D.M. (1999). Multimedia computer technology
and performance-based language testing: A demonstration of the Computerized Oral
Proficiency Instrument (COPI). In M.B. Olsen (Ed.), Association for
Computational Linguistics/International Association of Language Learning
Technologies Symposium proceedings. Computer mediated language assessment and
evaluation in natural language processing (pp. 16-23). New Brunswick NJ:
Association for Computational Linguistics.
Norris, J.M. (1997). The German Speaking Test: Utility and caveats. Die
Unaterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 30, 148-158.
Shohamy, E., Gordon, C., Kenyon, D.M., & Stanfield, C.W. (1989). The
development and validation of a semi-direct test for assessing oral proficiency
in Hebrew. Bulletin of Hebrew Higher Education, 4, 4-9.
Stansfield, C.W. (1996). Text development handbook: Simulated Oral
Proficiency Interview. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Stansfield, C.W. (1992). ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Stansfield, C.W., & Kenyon, D.M. (1992). The development and validation
of a simulated oral proficiency interview. Modern Language Journal, 76, 129-141.
Stansfield, C.W., & Kenyon, D.M. (1993). Development and validation of
the Hausa Speaking Test with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 4, 5-31. Stansfield, C.S., Kenyon, D.M., Paiva, D., Doyle, F.,
Ulsh, I., & Cowles, M.A. (1990). Development and validation of the
Portuguese Speaking Test. Hisspania, 73, 641-651.
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.