"The Psychology of Language" by Jerry Alan Fodor,T. Bever and M. Garrett, McGraw Hill,1974,

Jerry Alan Fodor (born 1935 in New York City, New York) is an American philosopher and cognitive scientist.
He holds the position of State of New Jersey Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University and is also the author of many works in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive science, in which he has laid the groundwork for the modularity of mind and the language of thought hypotheses, among other ideas.
...

Notes on Assessing Speaking
Barry O’Sullivan

1. Introduction
With all language skill testing, it is necessary to clearly state the specifications before
beginning to write the test (just as the previous sections have stated). In his very
pragmatic ‘Understanding and Developing Language Tests’ Cyril Weir (1993) presents
an approach to skills testing which calls for the identification of a series of language
operations which the skill in question will entail. In addition to this list, Weir suggests
that we need a set of conditions under which the task will be performed. Together
these will allow the test writer to establish the parameters of the task or tasks to be
employed in the test. Weir (2005) updated his original ideas and this later framework
adds greatly to our conceptualisation of how all four skills can be tested and validated.
In the following sections we will be looking at the testing of the four language skills in
terms of Weir’s 2005 framework.
It is commonly believed that tests of spoken language ability are the most difficult.
While I will not attempt to argue against that view here, it is important to recognise the
great improvements in the area that have been made over the last few decades. There
remain, of course, a number of areas of great concern to the test writer, most notably
construct definition, predictability of task response (task description), interlocutor
effect, the effect of characteristics of the test-taker on performance, rating-scale
validity and reliability, and rater reliability. McNamara’s (1996) model of the
relationship of proficiency to performance (see page 17) clearly highlights all of these
‘trouble spots’. He is essentially saying that until we can be certain that we fully
understand all the elements contained in his model we can not claim to be in a position
to create a totally valid or reliable performance test. I do not believe that McNamara
really expects that all elements can be ‘fully’ understood (clearly they cannot), and so
— as in all other areas of testing (language or other) — we can only attempt to do our
utmost to create tests which reflect what we do know, and to limit the inferences we
draw from scores awarded on these tests on this basis.
There has been relatively little, though very valuable research done in recent years into
those aspects of spoken language testing referred to above.

• Berry (2004), Kunnan (1995) and Purpura (1999) have explored characteristics
of the test-taker
• Foster and Skehan (1996; Foster and Skehan, 1999) have looked at the task, as
have Norris et al. (1998)
• O’Sullivan & Porter (1996), O’Sullivan (O’Sullivan, 1995; 2000; O’Sullivan,
2002; O’Sullivan, 2006), Brown (2003) and O’Loughlin (2002) have
investigated the interlocutor effect;
• North (1995) and Fulcher (1996) have focused on rating scales;
• Wigglesworth (1993), McNamara (1996), McNamara & Lumley (1997) and
O’Sullivan (2000) have examined rater performance.


One aspect of speaking that has received some interest in the past decade is the issue of
planning ((Foster and Skehan, 1996; Foster and Skehan, 1999; O’Sullivan et al., 2004;
Ortega, 1999; Wigglesworth, 1997). It appears clear at this point in time that the
provision of planning time is one of the key parameters that affects task difficulty in
speaking – though according to the findings of O’Sullivan et al (2004) these effects
may well be different for students at different levels of overall ability.
While the difficulties described above all relate to theoretical issues, there are also a
great number of practical considerations, which make this type of test more difficult to
administer than others. The first of the considerations is the sheer complexity of the
logistics involved. A test recently administered in Turkey, required that 400 candidates
be tested in pairs in a single day. This meant that there were 200 individual tests, each
lasting 15 minutes, with a 5 minute turn-around time. This translates into 67 hours of
testing, and with each test requiring two administrators (and interviewer and an
observer) who could not be expected to work for more than 6 hours, the total number
of rooms required was 12 (actually it was 67/6 which is 11.133, but have you ever seen
.133 of a room?). So, 12 rooms (all prepared in exactly the same way) for one day,
representing a total of 24 personnel. All candidates had to be carefully scheduled and
informed of their test time. Additional staff were then required to check that candidates
were present and in place at the correct time. The total administration time for this test
was in the region of 500 hours (remember that all personnel were trained and on the
day worked for 6 hours and that all results had to be collated, analysed and reported).
This represents a great deal of time and, of course expense.

2. The Test Taker
By systematically defining the test takers, we can genuinely take them into account
when designing tests. One example of this is that we would make decisions related to
the appropriacy of reading texts for the intended test population based on a broad range
of parameters, or that we would tailor our expectations (in terms of expected linguistic
output for example) again based on a broader understanding of the population. Too
often the test developer bases important decision on their perception of a test
population rather than on evidence. Where there is evidence that the population is
heterogeneous with regard to a number of the characteristics described here, we have a
problem. An example of this is where the age and background of the population taking
a test varies greatly. Here, the test developer struggles to come up with tasks that are
likely to result in the best performances from all candidates, and is one reason why
large-scale international tests (such as TOEFL and Cambridge ESOL Main Suite
examinations) are considered by many to be very bland.
The other relevance of understanding the test taker is to allow for the provision of
accommodations (i.e. special circumstances) for students with disabilities. Nowadays,
there is extensive legislation covering this area (certainly across the EU, in Asia and in
the Americas). A good example of what an examining board is expected to take into
account can be found on the Cambridge ESOL website (though all reputable
examination boards will publish lists similar to that reproduced below). The major
categories of accommodation (Cambridge ESOL refers to them as ‘special
arrangements’) available for test takers in the Cambridge ESOL examinations were
listed by Taylor (2003) as:


Braille Versions

Enlarged Print Versions

Hearing-impaired (lip-reading) Versions

Special Needs Listening Test Versions

Separate marking for candidates with Specific Learning Difficulties

Exemption from Listening or Speaking components

Additional time, provision of a reader and colour paper/overlay for dyslexic
test takers
To give an example of the complexity of the situation (outside of the fact that a single
application may include a request for accommodations in a number of areas) it is
useful to look at the range of accommodations offered just for the speaking papers,
where there are usually two learners working together and sometimes three learners.
This can cause some problems with the provision of accommodations, as the welfare
of all test takers must be taken into account if the test is to be fair to all participants.

Hearing Difficulties
• extra time (if it takes longer than usual to say things or to understand what people are saying)
• a partner who is not doing the examination (e.g. it is easier for the hearing impaired test taker
to lipread what the partner is saying if that partner can focus on clearly articulating, or lip
speaking, each word rather than on their own performance)
• no partner (i.e. in those parts of the test which usually ask both candidates to talk to each other,
the test taker may talk to the examiner instead – though this option is only available for the
Main Suite tests).
• ote: signing is not allowed (as this is considered a different communication skill)
Visual Difficulties
• extra time (where a test taker takes longer than usual to read any exam material or decide what
they want to say)
• a partner who is not doing the examination (an arrangement designed to eliminate any bias
towards or against the partner of a candidate qualifying for special arrangements)
• no partner (like the arrangement for test takers with hearing difficulties, this applies to those
parts of the test which usually ask both candidates to talk to each other. Again, the test taker
may talk to the examiner instead).
• adapted visual material (e.g. Braille versions of the task input material)

Short-term Difficulties
In the case of short-term difficulties, such as minor illnesses or injuries, test centres are
encouraged to take a supportive attitude, for example by bringing forward or delaying
the speaking test paper where possible. Taylor (2003: 2) reports that from a total
testing population of close to four hundred thousand (my estimate) for the Cambridge
ESOL Upper Main Suite examinations (FCE, CAE & CPE) in 2001, the number
requesting accommodations for the Speaking & Listening papers was just 11.


TEST TAKER CHARACTERISTICS

Physical/Physiological
Short term ailments Toothache, cold etc.
Longer term disabilities Speaking, hearing, vision (e.g., dyslexia)
Age Suitability of materials, topics etc. Demands of tasks (time, cognitive load etc)
Sex Suitability of materials, topics etc.
Psychological
Memory Related to task design, also to physical characteristics
Personality Related in speaking primarily to task format (e.g. number of participants in an event – solo, pair,
group, etc. can impact on how shy learners will perform)
Cognitive Style This refers to the way individuals think, perceive and remember information, or their preferred
approach to using such information to solve problems (if a task is primarily based on one aspect
of input such as a table of information, this may negatively affect some candidates)
Affective Schemata How the candidate reacts to a task. Can be addressed by the developer through carefully
controlled task purpose (even a sensitive topic can be addressed if the candidate is given a
reasonable purpose – e.g. allowing a candidate to personalise a topic can help them negate
many adverse affects) and/or topic (all examination boards have taboo lists – i.e. list of topics to
avoid, such as death, smoking etc.)
Concentration Related to age and also to length and amount of input
Motivation Among other things this can be related to task topic or to task/test purpose
Emotional state An example of an unpredictable variable. Difficult to deal with, though may be approached from
the same perspective as Motivation or Affective Schemata.
Experiential
Education This can be formal or informal and may have taken place in a context where the target language
was either the principal or secondary language
Examination
Preparedness
Can relate either to a course of study designed for this specific examination, examinations of
similar design or importance, or to examinations in general.
Examination
Experience
Again can relate to this specific examination, examinations of similar design or importance, or to
examinations in general.
Communication
Experience
Can relate to any of the above, e.g. where communication experience is based only in
classroom interactions or where the candidate has lived for some time in the target language
community and engaged in ‘real’ communication in that language.
TL-Country Residence Can relate to Education (i.e. place of education) or to Communication Experience (e.g. as a
foreign or second language)

Table 1 Test-Taker Characteristics
3. The Theory-Based or Cognitive Perspective
3.1. Language Processes
In the 1970s, the area of psycholinguistics was most obviously associated with studies
in spoken language understanding and processing. At that time, there were two
commonly held views: first that processing is sequential with each component being
autonomous in its operations; and second that processing is a more flexibly structured
system (Fodor et al., 1974; Marslen-Wilson and Tyler, 1980; Marslen-Wilson et al.,
1978; Tyler and Marslen-Wilson, 1977). However, the primary concern for
psycholinguists was in fact how spoken language relates to underlying linguistic
systems.

Levelt (1989) was the first to model the processing system that underlies speech
production (see Figure 1). His model (or blueprint as he called it) illustrates the
organization of the speech process, from the constraints on conversational
appropriateness to articulation and self-monitoring. This was a more comprehensive
system than previously theorised and remains the predominant theory today. Seeing
the speaker as an information processor, Levelt proposes a blueprint in which message
generation, grammatical encoding, phonological encoding, and articulation are seen as
relatively autonomous processors. Two points are however, made clear. First, though
Levelt ‘s model stops largely at the point of utterance, he devotes an entire chapter on
the speaker as an interlocutor in natural conversation (Chapter 2). Here he describes at
length the three essential aspects of conversation in which the speaker is a participant
and interlocutor: it is highly contextualized, has spatio-temporal setting, and is
purposeful. Secondly, though the model may seem complex at first, the basic
mechanisms of speech processing are conceptualized in a fairly uncomplicated
manner: we produce speech by first conceptualizing the message, then formulating its
language representation (encoding) and finally articulating it. With reference to speech
perception, speech is first perceived by an acoustic-phonetic processor, then linguistic
encoding in the speech comprehension system (the parser), and it is finally interpreted
by the conceptualizer.
Figure 1 A Blueprint of the Speaker (Levelt, 1989; 1999)
Levelt’s work in terms of the blueprint/framework influenced other works and has
been used or referenced in more recent works on research in speaking (Bortfeld et al.,
2001; Dornyei and Kormos, 1998; Ellis, 2003; Hughes, 2002; Ortega, 1999; Weir,
2005).


The Levelt blueprint forms the foundation for theory-based validity/internal processing
component of the framework for validating a speaking test (Weir, 2005). This aspect of
the validity framework is essential, not just for the purpose of validation but also for a
better understanding of the processes or operations that test takers utilize when
attempting the test task; only through such data can we make decisions about these
operations in relation to the elements we include in the test task or context validity. See
Table 2 for an overview of how Levelt’s work impacts on speaking test development.


COGNITIVE VALIDITY
COGNITIVE PROCESSES – based on Levelt (1989)

Conceptualiser conceiving an intention, selecting relevant information to be expressed to realize this purpose,
ordering information for expression, keeping track of what was said before; paying constant attention
to what is heard and own production, drawing on procedural and declarative knowledge. Speaker will
monitor messages before they are sent into the formulator.
Pre verbal message product of the conceptualisation stage
Linguistic formulator includes grammatical encoding and phonological encoding which accesses lexical form
Phonetic plan an internal representation of how the planned utterance should be articulated; internal speech
Articulator the execution of the phonetic plan by the musculature of the respiratory, the laryngeal and the
supralaryngeal systems
Overt speech
Audition understand what is being said by others or self, i.e. interpret speech sounds as meaningful words
and sentences
Speech comprehension access to various executive resources e.g. lexicon, syntactic parser, background knowledge. A
representation is formed of the speech in terms of its phonological, morphological, syntactic and
semantic composition. Applies to both internal and external overt speech.
MONITORING both of internal and external speech can be constantly in operation though sometimes this filter is
switched off. The system through which internal resources are tapped in response to demands of executive processing.

COGNITIVE RESOURCES

Content knowledge
Internal The test-taker’s prior knowledge of topical or cultural content (background knowledge)
External Knowledge provided in the task
Language knowledge – all references to Buck (2001)
Grammatical literal semantic level: includes phonemes, stress, intonation, spoken vocabulary, spoken syntax
Discoursal related to longer utterances or interactive discourse between two or more speakers: includes
knowledge of discourse features (cohesion foregrounding, rhetorical schemata and story grammars)
and knowledge of the structure of unplanned discourse
Functional function or illocutionary force of an utterance or longer text + interpreting the intended meaning:
includes understanding whether utterances are intended to convey ideas, manipulate, learn or are for
creative expression, as well as understanding indirect speech acts and pragmatic implications
Sociolinguistic the language of particular socio-cultural settings + interpreting utterances in terms of the context of
situation: includes knowledge of appropriate linguistic forms and conventions characteristic of
particular sociolinguistic groups, and the implications of their use, or non-use, such as slang,
idiomatic expressions, dialects, cultural references, figures of speech, levels of formality and registers


Table 2 Cognitive Validity & Levelt

2.2 Language Knowledge
In Part 2 we discussed test validation. Here, we saw that language knowledge refers to
assumptions on the part of the test developer of how test takers’ language can be most clearly defined. It is important to note that the efforts of testers such as Bachman
(1990) to define language ability (more accurately communicative language ability)
stemmed from the desire to base tests on an operationalised model so that the
underlying construct could be made clear. Rather than repeat the argument made in
that part of the course, it is best to focus on the central importance of having an explicit
understanding (or theory) set out before continuing with the development cycle. This
advice goes for the testing of any skill or ability.
While it is important to identify the aspects of language to be examined, there is some
considerable evidence to suggest that it is not possible to predict language use in task
performance at the microlinguistic level (e.g. grammar or lexicon). Researchers and
language testers have instead focused on more macro linguistic descriptions of
language. Bygate (1987Chapter 4, pp. 23-41) provides a useful categorisation of the
type of operations involved in any communicative interaction. This categorisation has
been adapted by Weir (1993: 34) in his checklist of operations:
Routine Skills Improvisation Skills Microlinguistic elements
Informational egotiation of Meaning
expository Management of Interaction
evaluative
Interactional
It should be noted that this checklist represents an attempt to gather together a set of
criteria by which the language of the test may be predicted. In identifying the
operations involved in the performance of a particular task, we are essentially defining
the construct that we are attempting to examine through that performance.
Informational Interactional Managing Interaction
Providing personal information Challenging Initiating
Providing non-personal information (Dis)agreeing Changing
Elaborating Justifying/Providing support Reciprocating
Expressing opinions Qualifying Deciding
Justifying opinions Asking for opinions Terminating
Comparing Persuading
Complaining Asking for information
Speculating Conversational repair
Analysing Negotiating meaning
Making excuses
Explaining
Narrating
Paraphrasing
Summarising
Suggesting
Expressing preferences
Table 3 Discourse Functions (from O’Sullivan, Weir & Saville 2002)
O’Sullivan, Weir & Saville (2002) presented the results from such a validation project,
carried out at Cambridge ESOL with their Main Suite examinations in mind. The
project involved an attempt to predict the language functions elicited by a set of tasks
(in the FCE examination) using a set of checklists developed from the above
categorisation. The study suggests that it is possible to perform such a prediction,
making it feasible to use a functions checklist in the writing of tasks and later in the
review of actual performance. Surprisingly, this has not been attempted to date, even
though (as the authors point out) it would appear to be of central importance that our
predicted outcome or response will match the actual. The checklists used in the study
are presented in Table 3.
3.3 Background Knowledge
Background knowledge has not been considered a major factor in the testing of
speaking. This is because of the task types typically used, where knowledge is
presented in the task input in order to ensure that all language samples elicited will be
comparable. While there are some examples of so-called ‘free conversation’ type oral
examinations, the general consensus nowadays is that the inherent inequality of the test
event makes true conversation (where all interlocutors have equal control over the
discourse) impossible, see van Lier (1989).
4. The Context Perspective
In the Table 3 we can see how each parameter can be operationalised. This way of
looking at the different parameters is actually very useful as it allows the test developer
a simple, yet systematic framework for describing each test task (so it can be used to
build a specification for the test). It also suggests a methodology for systematically
evaluating a test task, e.g. think about a test task you are familiar with (IELTS Writing
Task A; TOEFL Reading Paper etc.) now ask questions of the task based on each
parameter.
I have also used this format to review a series of tests (in any of the four skills) that are
claimed to be progressing through levels of ability. To do this, simply create a single
table with a column for each test to be reviewed. When you complete the information
asked for each test you can then make observations about the relative level and/or
complexity of each test in comparison to the others. This is particularly relevant for
programmes where there a number of progressive levels.


CONTEXT VALIDITY

Settings: Task
Purpose The requirements of the task. Allow candidates to choose the most appropriate strategies and determine
what information they are to target in the text in comprehension activities and to activate in productive tasks.
Facilitates goal setting and monitoring.
Response format How candidates are expected to respond to the task (e.g. MCQ as opposed to short answers). Different formats
can impact on performance.
Known criteria Letting candidates know how their performance will be assessed. Means informing them about rating criteria
beforehand (e.g. rating scale available on WEB page).
Weighting Goal setting can be affected if candidates are informed of differential weighting of tasks before test performance
begins.
Order of Items Usually in speaking tests this is set, not so in writing tests.
Time constraints This can relate either to pre-performance (e.g. planning time), or during performance (e.g. response time)
Intended operations A broad outline of the language operations required in responding to the task. May be seen as redundant as
a detailed list is required in the following section.
Demands: Task [note: this relates to the language of the INPUT and of the EXPECTED OUTPUT]
Channel In terms of input this can be written, visual (photo, artwork, etc), graphical (charts, tables, etc.) or aural
(input from examiner, recorded medium, etc). Output depends on the ability being tested.
Discourse Mode Includes the categories of genre, rhetorical task and patterns of exposition
Text Length Amount of input/output
Writer/speaker relationship Setting up different relationships can impact on performance (e.g. responding to known superior such as a boss
will not result in the same language as when responding to a peer).
Nature of Information The degree of abstractness. Research suggests that more concrete topics/inputs are less difficult to
respond to that more abstract ones.
Topic familiarity Greater topic familiarity tends to result in superior performance. This is an issue in the testing of all subskills
Linguistic
Lexical Range
Structural Range
Functional Range
these relate to the language of the input (usually expected to be set at a level below that of the expected
output) and to the language of the expected output. Described in terms of a curriculum document or a
language framework such as the CEFR.
Interlocutor
Speech Rate Output expected to reflect that of L1 norms. Input may be adjusted depending on level of candidature.
However, there is a danger of distorting the natural rhythm of the language, and thus introducing a
significant source of construct-irrelevant variance.
Variety of Accent Can be dictated by the construct definition (e.g. where a range of accent types is described) and/or by the
context (e.g. where a particular variety is dominant in a teaching situation).
Acquaintanceship There is evidence that performance improves when candidates interact with a friend (though this may be
culturally based).
Number Related to candidate characteristics – evidence that candidates with different personality profiles will
perform differently when interacting with different numbers of people.
Gender Evidence that candidates tend to perform better when interviewed by a woman (again can be culturally
based), and that the gender of one’s interlocutor in general can impact on performance.

Table 3 Context Validity

4.1 Language Elicitation Tasks for Speaking
The following set of task types represents an effort to somehow collapse the vast range
of test tasks that have been used in tests of spoken language ability. This is not meant
to be a complete set, but instead may be used as a guide or framework in which tasks
may be ordered. Unlike the previous sections, it may be seen from this list that it is not
terribly difficult to create a test which elicits a sample of a learner’s spoken language.
However, as we will see later in this section, this is only the beginning. The sample
must be rated (or given some kind of score) so that the performance is made ‘usable’,
in other words, stakeholders demand that any test results should be reported in a way
that they can understand and use.
Task Type Description Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
1. Reading Aloud Student normally asked to
silently read a text then to
read it aloud to the
examiner
All students must read the
same text so a similar
level of performance is
expected, makes for ease
of comparison
Language can be easily
controlled
There are significant
differences in native speaker
performance.
Interference between reading
and speaking skills.
In no way valid, while
remaining open to
unreliability (subjective
assessment used).
Seen as unacceptable in
most books.
2. Mimicry
Students are asked to repeat
a series of sentences after
the examiner. Results
recorded and analysed
Can be performed in a
language laboratory with
a large number of
students at one time.
Students expected to
perform equally as input
is same for all.
Language easily controlled.
Research shows error type
similar to ‘free’ talking.
Difficult to interpret, and
therefore to score, the
results.
Not authentic.
Not communicative.
Evaluates other skills such as
short term memory and
listening.
Severe ‘Backwash’ effect.
3. Conversational
Exchanges
Students are given a series of
situations (read or heard)
from which they are
expected to make
sentences using particular
patterns. Models of the
expected language may or
may not be first given, this
changes the nature of the
task.
Suitable for use with a large
number of students, for
example in the language
laboratory.
Language is controlled, so
comparison is possible
and reliability is likely to
be high.
Content validity in that the
language tested will be
directly related to that
studied in class by the
students.
No authentic interaction,
therefore the test is in no
way communicative.
Reading or listening skills will
interfere with the student’s
ability to respond to the
stimulus.
At best it tests a student’s
ability to reproduce the
chosen patterns under
extremely limited conditions.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 11
Task Type Description Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
4. Oral
Presentation
(Verbal Essay)
Student asked to speak,
without preparation,
(usually ‘live’ though
occasionally directly onto
tape) for a set time (e.g. 3
minutes) on one or more
specified general topics.
In an alternative version
some time may be allowed
for preparation (e.g. 30
seconds or 1 minute).
As students must speak at
length a wide variety of
criteria may be included in
any evaluation (inc.
fluency)
Topic may not interest
student.
Not authentic to ‘real’ life.
Offering a choice of topics
makes comparison difficult
More open ended topics and
the lack of preparation time
may mean that performance
depends on the extent of the
learners’ background (nonlinguistic)
knowledge.
Use of tape recorder may add
to the stress of the student.
(Prepared
monologue)
Similar to the Verbal Essay
but the student is given
time to prepare
Easy to prepare and to
administer
Gives the ‘appearance’ of a
communicative task.
Likely native speaker
differences make it an
unreliable and invalid
procedure.
Students likely to memorise
text.
Unless same monologue is
given to all students, results
not comparable
Knowledge of or interest in
the topic will affect
performance
With insufficient preparation
time students’ knowledge
may be tested and not their
language.
5. Information
Transfer
(Description of
Picture
Sequence)
Students take a series of
pictures and try to tell the
story in a predetermined
tense (e.g. the past) having
had some time to study the
pictures
Clear task.
If cultural/educational bias
is avoided in the pictures
no contamination of the
measurement takes
place.
Elicits extended sample of
connected speech.
Examines students’ ability
to use particular
grammatical forms.
Students exposed to same
prompts, so performance
comparisons valid.
Limited authenticity.
Tells little of students’ ability
to interact orally.
Poor picture quality can affect
student performance.
Reliability of scores may be
affected by differences in
interpretation of the pictures.
(Questions on a
single Picture)
Examiner asks student
several questions about the
content of a particular
picture, having first given
them time to study it.
Can offer authentic
materials to the student,
especially where the
content in geared to the
interest of the student
Student can only respond to
the questions asked.
Picture must be clear and
unambiguous.
If large scale difficulties of
comparability and of test
security arise.
(Alternative Visual
Stimuli)
Where ‘real’ objects are used
instead of pictures as
stimuli
Similar advantages to the
student as with a picture
elicitation task, while
adding a touch of greater
reality.
Similar disadvantages to
using a picture.
A knowledge of the object in
question may interfere with
the language produced.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 12
Task Type Description Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
6. Interaction
Tasks
(Information Gap:
Student -
Student)
Usually done in pairs, each
person is given part of the
total information, they must
then work together to
complete a task.
When students are free to
select their partner this
can be one of the most
effective communicative
tests tasks.
Generates a wide variety of
criteria on which rating is
dependent
Highly interactive.
One participant may
dominate.
Large proficiency differences
may affect performance
One student may be more
interested in the task.
Presents one situation of
language use.
Practical problems include
time, administration
difficulties, and maintaining
test security.
(Information Gap:
Student - Examiner)
As above, but with a student
who is missing information
required to complete a task
and must request it from
the examiner, who acts as
the interlocutor.
Interlocutor may act in a
similar way with all
candidates, making
performance comparison
valid.
Can be very daunting for the
student.
Examiner may be assessing
own performance in addition
to that of the student.
[examiner may not always
interact the same way with
all students]
Role Play (open) Student expected to play one
of the roles in an interaction
possible in ‘real’ language
use.
Can be Student - Student, or
Examiner - Student.
Face and content validity in
a variety of situations.
May be a reliable way of
observing and measuring
a students ability to
perform in given
situations
‘Histrionic’ students may
score higher than more
introverted ones.
Role familiarity may affect
performance.
Students sometimes use
‘reporting’ language instead
of adopting the role.
When large scale, different
role plays are required,
causing problems with
comparability and security.
Role Play (guided) Examiner (or volunteer) takes
a fixed (scripted) role in a
roleplay situation. Student
responds to these prompts.
Examiner has great control
over the language
elicited.
‘Situation’ may be
controlled to reflect
present testing
requirements or
objectives.
Using different topics may
increase user-friendliness of
task but will make result
comparison impossible.
Does not allow for genuine
interaction/topic expansion
therefore not really a
communicative test.
7. Interview
(free)
No predetermined procedure,
conversation “unfolds in an
unstructured fashion.”
High face and content
validity.
Performance varies due to
different topics and due to
differences in the way the
interview is conducted.
Time consuming and difficult
to administer
(Structured) Normally a set of procedures
is used to elicit
performance, that is there
are a series of questions
and/or prompts to guide the
interviewer through the
interview.
Greater possibility of all sts
being asked the same
questions, therefore
comparisons more valid.
High degree of content and
face validity.
High inter and intra-rater
reliability with training.
Limited range of situations
covered.
Examiners may not always
stick to the predetermined
questions.
Task Type Description Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)

8. Discussion
(Student - Student)
In pairs or groups students
are asked to discuss a
topic, make plans, etc.
Good face and content
validity.
Communicative.
Topics may be teacher or
student determined.
Performance of one strong
individual may dominate
others, so it needs careful
matching.
Possible interference from
conversation management
and discussion skills.
A relatively large number of
students may be tested at
one time
(Student - Examiner) Examiner determines topic
(though it could be
determined in cooperation
with the student) then
guides the discussion.
High face validity if student
has a role in the topic
choice.
Format may encourage the
examiner to expand the
conversation in chosen
directions.
Unless the same topic is
employed with all students
the resulting scores will not
be comparable.
Even if the same topic is used
there is little likelihood that
all students will produce the
same language.
Difficult to attain high
reliability with just one
examiner/scorer.
4.2 Speaking Test Formats
In addition to presenting a set of tasks, as in the previous sections, we must also think
about the different formats used in tests of spoken language. Of course there is no clear
line between the two sets of lists presented here, as there are some tasks which are
associated with particular formats and others which could well be used (or adapted for
use) in a number of formats. For obvious reasons the following list of formats is not
complete and represents an effort to outline some of the principal formats used, in
addition to mentioning some lesser known ones.
Format Description Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
1. Candidate
Monologue
Candidate performs set task
(typically task 4 above,
though tasks 1, 2 or 3 could
also be used) either ‘live’ or
recorded.
As listed for tasks 1 to 4. As listed for tasks 1 to 4.
2. Interview Candidate is examined either
alone or as a member of a
pair. The interviewer asks a
series of predetermined
questions of each
candidate.
Known as the Oral
Proficiency Interview (OPI)
and is the basis for the
CAMBRIDGE ESOL
spoken components.
As listed for task 7. As listed for task 7.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 14
Format Description Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s)
3. Recorded Stimuli
Questions first tape-recorded,
then students listen and
respond (response also
recorded).
Known as the Simulated Oral
Proficiency Interview
(SOPI) and is used in the
Test of Spoken English
(TSE).
Uniform results expected,
so can be used for
comparison
Suitable for use in a
language laboratory
Relatively easy to score,
and reliable.
Inflexible, no possibility of
expansion or follow up on
students’ answers.
Not authentic, no verbal or
non-verbal feedback
possible.
Can be very time-consuming
for the examiner.
4. Alternative
Formats
(self evaluation)
The student is asked to
evaluate own language
performance/ ability, using
a predetermined scale.
Easy for the teacher to set
once the scale has been
settled on
Useful to encourage student
self evaluation outside of
the testing situation
Certainly in the early stages
of use it is not reliable.
Can be culturally influenced,
therefore is not suitable for a
mixed-culture group.
(teacher evaluation)
Teacher continually assesses
student ability and
performance during the
term.
With (almost) daily contact
the teacher is in a unique
position to longitudinally
assess the student.
As the final score awarded
is based on a large
number of evaluations it
will probably be valid and
reliable.
Open to interference from the
student/ teacher
interpersonal relationship.
Only really useful when
combined with another test
result.
Use is limited to course
evaluation. Should not be
used as a placement test as
variables such as student
attendance will interfere.
(peer evaluation:
interview)
In groups of three or four
students take turns as
interviewer, observer and
interviewee, during which
they are asked to score the
interviewee’s performance
on a predetermined scale.
Large classes can be
accommodated in 30 to
40 minutes (each
interview lasts approx. 10
minutes).
A limited number of
variations makes it
replicable with the same
group.
Removes some student test
apprehension.
Research data shows a
high rate of agreement
among interviewer and
observer raters
Teacher has limited ‘control’
over each interview.
Scoring can be influenced by
factors other than language
ability, such as the interstudent
relationships in the
group.
May be more effective with
older or more highly
motivated students.
(peer evaluation:
group / pair work or
roleplay)
As with examiner monitored
tasks except that here the
evaluation is performed
either by individuals in the
pair/group or by other
student observers.
Similar advantages to the
peer evaluated interviews.
Where pairs / groups
perform individually with
remaining sts acting as
raters the reliability will
tend to be high.
If individually tested
examiner may observe
performances to provide
additional score
Similar disadvantages to the
peer evaluated interviews
and to the examiner
evaluated group / pair work
or roleplay tasks.
Asking individuals to rate
each other when they are all
equally engaged in the task
may be beyond the scope of
most younger or lower level
students.


It is quite common that a test will be made up of series of tasks, each involving a
different degree of cognitive load (for example a personal information exchange task is
relatively light as the response is already known so the candidate can focus on the
language, while a decision making task is heavier as the answer is not known — there
is none! — so there is less opportunity to focus on the language), and expected
response (in terms of the performance conditions). An example of this is the
Cambridge ESOL First Certificate in English (FCE) spoken language test (Paper 5). In
this test there are two candidates (C1 & C2), an interlocutor/examiner/facilitator (IEF)
and an observer (O). The test begins with monologues from each of the candidates,
followed by an interactive task between the candidates and finishing in a three-way
interaction task (C1, C2 & IEF).
4.2.1. Test Example
The above descriptions indicate that tests of speaking generally follow one of two main
methods, live or recorded. This can consist of an interview (where a candidate or
candidates communicate with an examiner in a one-to-one interaction), a pair-work
activity (or activities), or of a combination of these formats. The former of these are
often referred to as Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) though in North America this is
typically associated with the Foreign Services Institute (FSI) test.
In the following two sections I will present brief case studies on these two formats.
The first test is the Cambridge ESOL FCE speaking paper.
The FCE Speaking Paper
A good example of a set of tests which attempt to include all of the above (in addition
to the inclusion of a student monologue) is the Cambridge ESOL Main Suite battery of
examinations. These tests are aligned with the ALTE framework and between them are
expected to cover the range proficiency (see Figure 2)
Figure 2 The Cambridge/ALTE Five-Level System
ALTE Level 1
Waystage
User
ALTE Level 2
Threshold
User
ALTE Level 3
Independent
User
ALTE Level 4
Competent
User
ALTE Level 5
Good User
CAMBRIDGE
Level 1
CAMBRIDGE
Level 2
CAMBRIDGE
Level 3
CAMBRIDGE
Level 4
CAMBRIDGE
Level 5
KET PET FCE CAE CPE
BASIC INTERMEDIATE ADVANCED
The FCE Speaking Test Format
The FCE Paper 5 is a direct test of speaking ability using a paired format of two test-
takers and two testers, with, in exceptional cases, the possibility of a group of three
test-takers. Saville and Hargreaves (1999: 44) justify this format on the grounds of
stakeholder feedback, greater reliability and fairness from having two ratings of the
performance, the broadening of the interaction-types available, and its potential for
positive washback through encouraging the use of pair-work activities in the language
learning classroom. While the test format has been criticised, particularly by Foot
(1999), for its failure to acknowledge the potential difficulties relating to dyad
composition (different language level, sex, personality etc.), this criticism has not been
based on any empirical evidence – though the questions raised are important, and will
be directly addressed in this study.
The figure below (Figure 3) represents the physical format of the test, and includes
reference to the various roles undertaken by the testers during a test event.

Figure 3 The FCE Paper 5 (Speaking) Format
Manager/Examiner
Interlocutor/Facilitator/Examiner
Awards scores using
Analytic Scale
Manages the time,
scoresheets, etc.
Awards scores using
Holistic Scale
Gives instructions etc.
using Interlocutor Frame
Ensures that the
candidates are both
engaged in the tasks
Test-Takers
Interact with the Interlocutor & with each
other, as well as monologue
No interaction between the
Observer and the test-takers.
Minimal interaction between the
testers
The test content
The test consists of a number of tasks, each designed to elicit a different sample of
language functions, so that each candidate has an opportunity to demonstrate the range
of his/her ability. See Figure 4 for an outline of the four tasks.
Figure 4 Format of the Main Suite Speaking Tests
1 Interviewer – Candidate
Interview
Verbal Questions
2 Candidate Monologue
Individual Long turn
3 Candidate – Candidate
Collaborative task
Visual stimulus
Verbal instructions
4 Interviewer – Candidate – Candidate
Long turns and discussion
Written stimulus
Verbal Questions
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 17
The test-takers
As mentioned above, over 250,000 test-takers from over 150 countries throughout the
world participate in the FCE every year. Approximately 75% of these test-takers are
aged under 25, with the average being 23 years, though in some countries, such as
Greece, the average is lower. Most test-takers are female, and are students, though
these figures differ from country to country. In addition, approximately 80% of the
test-takers will have undertaken a course of study designed specifically for the FCE
(CAMBRIDGE ESOL 1997).
During the test, these test-takers are expected to perform a set of four tasks which
involve a series of interactions with the other participants. These interactions will be
discussed in the section related to the test tasks.
The testers
The FCE format involves two testers, one who participates directly in the interaction,
and another who remains a neutral observer. Within these roles each tester undertakes
a number of functions. Similarly, the test-takers are expected to undertake different
roles, in terms of the different interaction types demanded of them by the different
tasks.
The Tester as Participant
The role of the tester (the person who will interact with the test-takers) is quite
complex as it varies with each task during the test. These roles are:
Interlocutor: The interlocutor interacts directly with each test-taker at all stages of
the test, particularly in the interview stage. The interlocutor’s role is
related to the fabric of the test, in that (s)he is expected to follow a
predetermined ‘interlocutor-frame’ which is scripted or controlled.
Facilitator: The facilitator must accommodate the interaction between two test-
takers, encouraging both during the monologic and dialogic stages.
The role of facilitator differs from that of interlocutor in that it is in
this role that the tester must exercise a degree of spontaneity
independent of the ‘interlocutor-frame’ in order to ensure that each
interaction is engaged in as equally as possible by the test takers.
Examiner: The examiner must award a score, using a Holistic scale (described
below) to each test-taker based on their performance.
The Tester as Observer
The role of the tester-as-observer (the person who does not interact with the test-
takers) is less complex though this person also takes on a number of roles during the
test. These roles are:
Manager: The observer-as-manager’s role is related to the management of the
administration of the test, principally in terms of ensuring that the
score sheets have been correctly completed and scores have been
entered correctly.
Examiner: As an examiner, the observer has far more time in which to evaluate
the test-takers’ performances in relation to a number of criteria.
Therefore, he or she must award a score using an Analytic scale
(comprised of four equally weighted criteria and described below) to
each test-taker based on their performance.
In addition to these roles, individual tests are selected for monitoring – both of the test
and tasks, and for tester performance. This monitoring is typically done by a senior
examiner called a Team Leader. While this additional role is recognised here, it is not
relevant to this study; although some random monitoring was done on the tests being
reported here, it will not feature in this study as the monitor neither plays a part in the
administration of the test, nor interacts with either the testers or the test-takers. Figure
5 represents an overview of the tester roles within the FCE.
Figure 5 The role of the Tester in the FCE Testing Event
PARTICIPA$T
TESTER
Examiner – rating function
(global scale)
Interlocutor – delivery of
interlocutor
frame
OBSERVER
Facilitator – deviation from
frame necessitated
by interaction
Manager – of administration
Examiner/Assessor – rating
function
MO$ITOR
Evaluator – of the testers
of the test-takers
of the test
4.2.2. The Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview [SOPI]
The Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI) is a tape-mediated test of speaking
ability – as opposed to the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) which is a live test. In
other words, it is performed by a group of test-takers in a language lab. One advantage
of this type of test is that it can cope with quite large numbers of students while
providing standardised input at all times. A typical SOPI will contain a series of
different tasks, designed to access different aspects or dimensions of a candidate’s
speaking ability. Performance on all tasks is typically scored using an Analytic scale
(though Holistic scores are common), the final score is then averaged from all scores
awarded. Another advantage of this method is that the performances can be rated
directly from the tapes by trained raters working independently of each other.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 19
A typical example of this type of test is the Graduating Students Language Proficiency
Assessment (GSLPA) taken by all graduating student at the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University. This test consists of five tasks:
1. Listen and report – based on a five minute radio interview (report to friend)
2. Interview – series of 4 questions based on job advertisement
3. Short Presentation – based on given information (to work colleagues)
4. Telephone Message – listen to request, reply to request (work related – to
colleague)
5. Social Context – respond to request for some specific information about Hong
Kong.
The test works by playing the master tape to each of the booths in the language lab.
Each candidate listens to the tape and responds when cued – the response times are
built in to the master tape. Meanwhile individual tapes are recording everything that
happens in each booth (the master tape and the responses) so the examiner is left with
evidence of the input and of the output. The resulting tapes are then multiple-rated (by
trained raters).
Figure 6 The SOPI Format
candidate
listens
tape
records
candidate
speaks
tape
records
Master tape plays, INPUT Master tape plays, but no INPUT
This method has been criticised as it results in monologic discourse only (though you
can see how the designers have tried to build in a context and an audience to limit this
effect), and for being unnatural (or inauthentic). Since the format was first proposed (in
the early 1980s) the test has moved with the times with more recent VOPIs (Video)
and COPIs (Computer) proposed.
While there have been some studies that attempted to explore the differences between
the two formats (SOPI/OPI), these have not been definitive in their outcomes
(O’Loughlin, 2001) – though it appears to be clear that raters tend to he harsher when
rating taped performances.
5. The Scoring Perspective
Finally, we will take a look at how spoken performance is assessed. This is a central
aspect of Scoring Validity.
In the past, the emphasis on performance test (writing or speaking) reliability tended to
focus on reliability (typically inter-rater reliability). This emphasis, while useful,
seriously limits our overall understanding of how every aspect of the process of
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 20
turning a test performance into a score or grade is important to the overall validity of
inferences drawn from that score or grade. We therefore see (in Table B6) that we
should pay attention to every step of the process. This is not to ignore the importance
of the measurement qualities of a test. It is still vitally important that any test meet the
highest possible standards, so we would still expect to investigate the inter- and intra-
rater reliability of any productive language test.
SCORING VALIDITY
Criteria/Rating Scale The criteria must be based on the theory of language (Language Knowledge) outlined in the Theory Based
Validity section and reflected again in the Demands: Task section of Context Validity. They should also reflect
‘actual’ language production for the task or tasks included in the examination.
Rating Procedures
Training There are a number of different approaches to training, and there is evidence that training improves
harshness, consistency and ability to stay on standard.
Standardisation As part of any training regime, raters must internalise the criterion level (e.g. pass/fail boundary) and this should be
checked using a standardisation procedure (or test if you like).
Conditions Attempts should be made to ensure that all rating/examining takes place under optimal conditions. Where
possible, these conditions should be set, so that all examiners have an equal opportunity to perform at their
best.
Moderation This involves monitoring the performance of raters to ensure that they stay on level.
Analysis Statistical analysis of all rater performances will ensure that individual candidates will not lose out in situations
where examiners are either too harsh/lenient or are not behaving in a consistent manner.
This is the part of Scoring Validity that is traditionally seen as reliability (i.e. the reliability of the scoring, or
rating, system).
Raters When we discuss the candidate (in terms of physical, psychological and experiential characteristics) we
should also consider what we know of the examiners in terms of these same characteristics. Little research
has been undertaken in which these have been systematically explored from the perspective of the rater.
Grading & Awarding The systems that describe how the final grades are estimated and reported should be made as explicit as
possible to ensure fairness. These are usually a combination of statistical analysis of results and qualitative
analysis of the test itself.
Table 4 Scoring Validity
It is vitally important that the Criteria or Rating Scale we use in a test of writing or
speaking should include criteria that reflect the model of language ability that we
hypothesise reflects what exists in the mind of the test taker (for example the
Cambridge ESOL rating scale should be directly related to the model of language
ability shown above in Figure B3). This same model/set of criteria should also be
reflected in the expected linguistic output of the test task. Without this triangulation we
can never argue convincingly that our test is valid. I think of this relationship as the
‘Golden Triangle’ without which we can never claim that our test of speaking or
writing is valid (see Figure 7).
Since it is a major decision to decide on the criteria that will be used for performance
evaluation we will next focus on that aspect of development. The kind of scale (or
rubric) to be used falls into one of two types, Holistic and Analytic. As with many
other decisions that are made in language testing, the final decision as to which one to
opt for is often down to practicality – for example it would be unwise to ask an
examiner who is also the interlocutor to award scores on an Analytic scale since, as we
will see below, it involves awarding multiple scores (so the person just may not have
the time to get involved in such a complex task).
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 21
Figure 7 The ‘Golden Triangle’ relationship
5.1. The Holistic Rating Scale
In this type of scale the rater will award a single mark for the performance, based on a
predetermined scale. An example of this type of scale is that of Carroll (1980) shown
in Figure 7. The greatest advantage of the Holistic scale is its simplicity and speed. In
addition, it is relatively easy to train raters to agree to within a band of the observed
performance (this is the typical level of agreement set in standardisation procedures).
Figure 7 The Holistic Rating Scale (Carroll, 1980)
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 22
However, the disadvantages of this scale include the danger of ‘trial by first
impression’ meaning that since the examiner is asked to give one score only he or she
may (and often does) simply rely on their first impression (or previous knowledge) of
the candidate. So the score awarded may not actually reflect the observed performance.
The other danger with this type of scale is that it represents at best a crude measure of
the ability we are attempting to examine.
5.2. The Analytic Rating Scale
In this type of scale the developer first identifies the operations involved in responding
to the task(s) and then attempts to create a marking scheme specifically to reflect these
operations. This results in a multi-faceted scale, each component of which adds to an
overall score. The most famous of all analytic scales is the Foreign Services Institute
(FSI) scale, upon which most others have been based, see below.
Figure 8 The Foreign Services Institute (FSI) Analytic Rating Scale
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 23
As can be seen in Figure 8, the Analytic scale is composed of a set of criteria. It is
possible that these same criteria could be used to prepare an Holistic version of the
scale, by collapsing the different criteria into a single band. The Analytic has been
criticised for being simply a set of holistic scales – so that the distinction between the
two is not at all as clear as we might first think. In this way, the Analytic scale suffers
from the same disadvantages as the Holistic scale (magnified by the number of criteria
included in the scale).
Figure 9 The Cambridge ESOL FCE Analytic Rating Scale
In fact, this idea, of collapsing the basic elements of the analytic scale to make a single
Holistic scale, been successfully attempted, as can be seen with the two FCE scales
presented in Figures 9 and 10. As we saw in the overall description of the FCE test,
these scales are designed to be used by the two examiners involved in each test event,
the interlocutor using the Holistic (Figure 10) version and the Observer using the
Analytic version (Figure 9).
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 24
Figure 10 The Cambridge ESOL FCE Holistic Rating Scale
When reading the descriptors at levels 1, 3 or 5 we can see that there is an attempt to
include all of the four criteria included in the analytic scale. However, we don’t really
know if these criteria can be collapsed in this way — in that we don’t know for certain
how the different criteria configure at each level. This fact represents the main
advantage to using the Analytic scale, as it allows us to examine and score each of the
criteria separately.
rater candidate Hol GV DM Pr IC Tot
OM 1 4 4 4 4 4 20
OM 2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5
OM 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 4 22.50
OM 4 4 4 4 4 4 20
OM 5 3 3 3 3 3 15
OM 6 4 3.5 4 4 4 19.50
OM 7 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3 13.50
OM 8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 12
OW 1 4 4 4 4 4 20
OW 2 3 3 3 3.5 3 15.5
OW 3 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 11
OW 4 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 3 13.50
OW 5 3 3 3 3 3 15
OW 6 2.5 2 2 2 2 10.5
OW 7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 22.5
OW 8 2 2 1.5 2 1.5 9
SJ 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3 13.5
SJ 2 3.5 3 3 3.5 3.5 16.5
SJ 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 12.5
SJ 4 2.5 3 2.5 3.5 3 14.5
SJ 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 12.5
SJ 6 2.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 11.5
SJ 7 3.5 3.5 3 3 3.5 16.5
SJ 8 3 3 3 3 3 15
Table 5 Rating Data
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 25
However, there is a problem with this type of scale, as can be seen in the results shown
below (Table 5) of an spoken test in which the FCE scale was used. Ignoring, for a
moment the Holistic scores, it is clear from the table that on no fewer than 8 occasions
(or 1/3 of the time) the rater awarded the same score for all four categories. This fact
has two implications.
The first implication is that in one third of the cases the candidates have demonstrated
the same level of ability on all four criteria — in other words the criteria for
proficiency configure in the predicted way for all these subjects (a fact supported by
the Holistic score matching the Analytic score exactly in all eleven cases). However,
there is also a chance that the rater was simply assessing a single ability, and that he (in
this particular case the examiners were men) filled in the same score in each category
because of this. This is known as a halo effect.
Before finishing with this comparison of the two scale types, it is interesting to
compare the results given (by two different ‘independent’ raters remember) using the
two scales.
In the correlation matrix (Table 6), we would expect that the four elements of the
Analytic scale would correlate highly with the total Analytic score and with the overall
Total (after all they make up part of those scores). Similarly, we might expect that the
Holistic score would correlate highly with the overall Total score. By correlation we
mean the similarity in scoring patterns – all of the numbers in the table would be seen
as being really very high.
What is interesting is the very high correlation between the Holistic score and the total
Analytic score. This reflects the findings of a number of studies in which both analytic
and holistic scores were given, and certainly suggests that both scales offer very
similar outcomes.
Holistic GV DM Pr IC Analytic Total
Hol 1.000
GV 0.882 1.000
DM 0.929 0.915 1.000
Pr 0.869 0.881 0.891 1.000
IC 0.883 0.865 0.904 0.828 1.000
Analytic
(GV+DM+Pr+IC)
0.934 0.958 0.973 0.942 0.944 1.000
Tot 0.952 0.957 0.972 0.938 0.941 0.998 1.000
Table 6 Correlation Matrix
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 26
Reading
Nakamura, Yuji. 1996. Assessment of English Speaking Ability. Journal of
Humanities and atural Sciences, 102: 25-53.
An interesting overview of then current practice in Japan.
Kenyon, Dorry, M. and Tschirner, Erwin, T. 2000. The Rating of Direct and Semi-
Direct Oral Proficiency Interviews: Comparing Performance at Lower
Proficiency Levels. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (1): 85 – 101.
Thoughtful look at similarities and differences in how performances on the different
test formats are scored.
O’Sullivan, Barry, Weir, Cyril J. and Saville Nick. 2002. Using observation checklists
to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19(1): 33-56.
Description of how a set of checklists used to monitor whether the functions predicted
by the test developers were reflected in the language used by candidates when
performing the tasks.
O’Sullivan, Barry. 2002. Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task
performance. Language Testing, 19(3): 277-295.
An experimental study into the effect on candidate performance in appeared speaking
against of the level of acquaintanceship between the candidate and the interlocutor.
Further reading
Weir, C. 1993. Understanding and Developing Language Tests. Prentice Hall. Ch. 2
Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. CUP. Ch. 10
Weir, C. 1988. Communicative Language Testing. Prentice Hall. Ch. 4 pp. 73-85
Weir, C. 2005. Language Testing and Validation: an evidence-based approach:
Palgrave. Sections 7.3, 8.3 and 9.3.
References
BACHMAN, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
BERRY, V. 2004. A study of the interaction between individual personality differences and oral
performance test facets, Kings College, The University of London.
BORTFELD, H., LEON, S. D., BLOOM, J. E., SCHOBER, M. F. and BRENNAN, S. E. 2001.
Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role, and
Gender. Language and Speech, 44.123-47.
BROWN, A. 2003. Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency.
Language Testing, 20.1-25.
BYGATE, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CARROLL, B. 1980. Testing communicative performance. Oxford: Pergamon.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 27
DORNYEI, Z. and KORMOS, J. 1998. Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: a
psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20.349-85.
ELLIS, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FODOR, J. A., BEVER, T. G., GARRETT, M. F. and . 1974. The Psychology of Language: An
Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
FOSTER, P. and SKEHAN, P. 1996. The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second
Language Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18.299-323.
—. 1999. The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based
performance. Language Teaching Research, 3.215-47.
FULCHER, GLENN. 1996. Does Thick Description Lead to Smart Tests? A Data-Based
Approach to Rating Scale Construction. Language Testing, v13 n2 p208-38 Jul 1996.
HUGHES, R. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. London: Longman.
KUNNAN, A. J. 1995. Test Taker Characteristics and Test Performance: A structural modelling
approach.vol. 2: Studies in Language Testing. Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL &
Cambridge University Press.
LEVELT, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LEVELT, W.J.M. 1999. Producing Spoken Language: a Blueprint of a Speaker. The
Neurocognition of Language, ed. by C. M. Brown and P Hagoort, 83-112. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
MARSLEN-WILSON, W. and TYLER, L. K. . 1980. The Temporal Structure of Spoken Language
Understanding. Cognition, 8.1-71.
MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., TYLER, L. K. and SEIDENBERG, M. 1978. Sentence processing and
the clause boundary. Studies in the perception of language, ed. by W. J. M. Levelt and
F. d'Arcais. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
MCNAMARA, T. F. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London: Longman.
MCNAMARA, T. F. and LUMLEY, TOM. 1997. The Effect of Interlocutor and Assessment Mode
Variables in Overseas Assessments of Speaking Skills in Occupational Settings.
Language Testing, 14.140-56.
NORRIS, J. M. , BROWN, J. D., HUDSON, T. and YOSHIOKA, J. 1998. Designing Second
Language Performance Assessments. Technical Report #18. Hawai’i: University of
Hawai’i Press.
NORTH, B. 1995. The Development of a Common Framework Scale of Descriptors of
Language Proficiency Based on a Theory of Measurement. System, 23.445-65.
O'LOUGHLIN, K. 2002. The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing,
19.169-92.
O’LOUGHLIN, K. 2001. The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
O'SULLIVAN, B., WEIR, C. J. and SAVILLE, N. 2002. Using Observation Checklists To Validate
Speaking-Test Tasks. Language Testing, 19.33-56.
O’SULLIVAN, B. 1995. Oral Language Testing: Does the Age of the Interlocutor make a
Difference?, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Reading.
—. 2000. Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance. System, 28.373-86.
—. 2002. Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language
Testing, 19.277-95.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 28
—. 2006. Modelling Performance in Oral Language Tests: Language Testing and Evaluation.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
O’SULLIVAN, B. and PORTER, D. 1996. Speech Style, Gender and Oral Proficiency Interview
Performance. RELC Conference. Singapore
O’SULLIVAN, B., WEIR, C. and HORAI, T. 2004. Exploring difficulty in speaking tasks: an
intra-task perspective: Cambridge ESOL/The British Council/ IDA Australia: IELTS
ORTEGA, L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20.109-48.
PURPURA, J. E. 1999. Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural
equation modeling approach.vol. 8: Studies in Language Testing. Cambridge:
Cambridge ESOL & Cambridge University Press.
TYLER, L. K. and MARSLEN-WILSON, W. 1977. The on-line effects of semantic context on
syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.683--92.
VAN LIER, L. 1989. Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: oral
proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23.489-508.
WEIR, C. J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation: an evidence-based approach. Oxford:
Palgrave.
WEIR, C. J. 1993. Understanding and Developing Language Tests. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Hall.
WIGGLESWORTH, G. 1993. Exploring bias analysis as a tool for improving rater consistency in
assessing oral interaction. Language Testing, 10.305-36.
—. 1997. An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse.
Language Testing, 14.85-106.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 29
Appendix 1 Validation Framework for Speaking
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 30
Appendix 2 Guidelines for Speaking Tests
Instructions
1 Are the instructions clear on what students have to do?
2 Are the instructions written at a level clearly below that expected of the candidates?
3 Are the instructions grammatically correct?
4 Are the instructions spelled correctly?
5 Are the instructions likely to be familiar to the students?
6 Are the instructions specific about the amount of planning time allowed for each task?
7 Are the instructions specific about the amount of speaking time allowed for each task?
8 Do students know the assessment criteria (rubric)?
WRITING TASKS
1 Does the task measure what it is supposed to measure? Make sure task types are suitable for
testing the specified functions.
2 Do the tasks appropriately sample the range of speaking ability expected at this level?
3 Is each task closely related to real-life language use? Try to make it as realistic as possible.
4 Are visual stimuli, e.g. pictures, drawings, tabled data, etc., clear and accessible? Does the
test avoid visual and mental overload?
5 Are the tasks at the right level of difficulty?
a. Is the type of drawings/ pictures/ information familiar to the students?
b. Are the tasks familiar to the students? Have the students likely to have practised the
same type of tasks?
c. Are the topics sufficiently familiar so every student has enough knowledge to write
about? Topics should not be biased in any way.
d. Is the length of output appropriate to the stage? The length of speaking required should
not be too much for the student.
e. Is time given sufficient to understand the question and deliver a satisfactory response?
Danger with giving too much or too little time.
f. Does the test include a variety of questions for both good and weak students? They are
necessary for making differentiation between students. Simple or easier tasks/items
should be given first and more difficult tasks later.
6 Is there a choice of task? If so, are you sure they are equivalent in all respects? Normally it is
better not to give a choice to be fair to the students.
RATING SCALE (RUBRIC)
1
Do the criteria contained in the scale match the expectations of the task designer? If the task
is designed to measure one aspect of language this must be reflected in the scale.
2 Are the descriptors written in clear and unambiguous language?
3
Is it easy to compute marks to generate the final score? Ideally, raters should not be asked to
perform any calculations.
© Barry O’Sullivan 2008 page 31
4 4. What is the pass score? How do you decide on this?
5
5. Are marking and markers reliable?
a. Have you ensured that all raters fully understand the scale?
b. Are all the markers aware of and agreed on critical boundary?
c. Are all markers standardized to these criteria? They should be. It is useful to have
samples of speaking at different levels to illustrate different performances in respect of
each of the criteria. This will help with reliability of marking between teachers as well as
for the individual teacher over time.
d. Is the marker consistent in his/her own standard of marking?
FINAL PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKS
1 Is it clear to the students what the individual parts of the test are testing? Are they told what
each task tests?
2 Have you proof-read the test? Be sure to eliminate any mistakes by reading over the final
version at least twice. The more times you read it, the better. Check that any visual input has
been prepared to a high level of quality.
3 Have you given or are you going to give tests and marking schemes to interested, trustworthy,
professional colleagues for their comments? You should! Test of speaking should not be a
solitary activity.
4 Have you checked that the kind of language (i.e. functions) predicted at the development
phase actually occur in the operational phase!
...

...