ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview – computer (OPIc)

American Academy of Arts and Sciences Committee on Language Learning. (2017). America’s languages: Investing in language education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/language/Commission-on-Language-Learning_Americas-Languages.pdf

American Councils for International Education. (2017). The national K-12 foreign language enrollment survey report. Retrieved from www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/FLE-report-June17.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012 [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2016). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Retrieved from www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_Assessments.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2017). ACTFL OPIc examinee handbook. Retrieved from https://www.languagetesting.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/manuals/opic-examinee-handbook.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2018). 2017 Annual Report. Retrieved from www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/annualreport2017/index.html

Bachman L. Palmer A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bärenfänger O. Tschirner E. (2012). Assessing evidence of validity of assigning CEFR ratings to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Oral Proficiency Interview by computer (OPIc) (Technical Report 2012-US-PUB-1). Leipzig: Institute for Test Research and Test Development.

Bernhardt E. Molitoris J. Romeo K. Lin N. Valderrama P. (2015). Designing and sustaining a foreign language writing assessment programs at the postsecondary level. Foreign Language Annals, 48(3), 329–349. doi:10.1111/flan.12153

Brown A. V. Cox T. L. Thompson G. L. (2017). A comparative discourse analysis of Spanish past narrations from the ACTFL OPI and OPIc. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4), 793–807. doi:10.1111/flan.12302

Chapelle C. A. Enright M. K. Jamieson J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3992.2009.00165.x

Cox T. (2017). Understanding Intermediate-level speakers’ strengths and weaknesses: An examination of OPIc tests from Korean learners of English. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1), 84–113. doi:10.1111/flan.12258

Cubbellotti S. (2015). Examination evaluation of the ACTFL OPIc® in Arabic, English, and Spanish for the ACE Review. White Plains, NY: ACTFL. Retrieved from www.languagetesting.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/research/reports/Examination_Evaluation_of_the_ACTFL_OPIc_in_Arabic_English_and_Spanish_for_the_ACE_Review.pdf

Davin K. J. Rempert T. A. Hammerand A. A. (2014). Converting data to knowledge: One district’s experience using large-scale proficiency assessment. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 241–260. doi:10.1111/flan.12081

Gass S. Winke P. Van Gorp K. (2016). The Language Flagship Proficiency Initiative [research in the news]. Language Teaching, 49(4), 592–595.

Glisan E. W. Swender E. Surface E. A. (2013). Oral proficiency standards and foreign language teacher candidates: Current findings and future research directions. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 264–289. doi:10.1111/flan.12030

Goldberg D. Looney D. Lusin N. (2015). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, fall 2013. Retrieved from www.mla.org/content/download/31180/1452509/EMB_enrllmnts_nonEngl_2013.pdf

Kissau S . (2014). The impact of the Oral Proficiency Interview on one foreign language teacher education program. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 527–545. doi:10.1111/flan.12092

Knoch U. Chapelle C. A. (2018). Validation of rating processes within an argument-based framework. Language Testing, 35(4), 477–499. doi:10.1177/0265532217710049

LaFlair G. T. Staples S. (2017). Using corpus linguistics to examine the extrapolation inference in the validity argument for a high-stakes speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34(4), 451–475. doi:10.1177/0265532217713951

Liskin-Gasparro J. E. (2003). The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and Oral Proficiency Interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 484–490. doi:10.1111/j.1944–9720.2003.tb02137.x

Malone M. E. (2003). Research on the Oral Proficiency Interview: Analysis, synthesis, and future directions. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 491–497. doi:10.1111/j.1944–9720.2003.tb02138.x

McNamara T. F. (1990). Item Response Theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing, 7(1), 52–75.

Michigan Department of Education. (2015). Standards for the preparation of teachers of world languages (FA-FS), world languages (FA-FS) content standards. Retrieved from www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Item_L_Approval_of_World_Language_Standards_504776_7.pdf

National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2017). NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements. [website] www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements

New American Economy. (2017). Not lost in translation: The growing importance of foreign language skills in the U.S. job market. Retrieved from www.leadwithlanguages.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NAE_Bilingual_V6.pdf

Salaberry R. (2000). Revising the revised format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. Language Testing, 17(3), 289–310.

Shohamy E. (1990). Discourse analysis in language testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 115–131.

Surface E. A. Poncheri R. M. Bhavsar K. S. (2008). Two studies investigating the reliability and validity of the English ACTFL OPIc with Korean test takers. Raleigh, NC: SWA Consulting. Retrieved from www.languagetesting.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/research/ACTFL-OPIc-English-Validation-2008.pdf

SWA Consulting. (2009). Brief reliability report 5: Test-retest reliability and absolute agreement rates of English ACTFL OPIc® proficiency ratings for double and single rated tests within a sample of Korean test takers. Raleigh, NC: SWA Consulting. Retrieved from www.languagetesting.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/research/ACTFL-OPIc-Retest-Reliability-Study-2009.pdf

Thompson G. L. Cox T. L. Knapp N. (2016). Comparing the OPI and the OPIc: The effect of test method on oral proficiency scores and student preference. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 75–92. doi:10.1111/flan.12178

Tigchelaar M. Bowles R. P. Winke P. Gass S. (2017). Assessing the validity of ACTFL Can-Do Statements for spoken proficiency: A Rasch analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 584–600. doi:10.1111/flan.12286

Tschirner E. Bärenfänger O. (2013). Assessing evidence of validity of the ACTFL Reading Proficiency Test (RPT) (Technical Report 2013-US-PUB-1). Leipzig, Germany: Institute for Test Research and Development. Retrieved from www.languagetesting.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/research/reports/Assessing_Evidence_of_Validity_and_Reliability_of_the_ACTFL_RPT.PDF

Wind S. A. Peterson M. E. (2018). A systematic review of methods for evaluating rating quality in language assessment. Language Testing, 35(2), 161–192. doi:10.1177/0265532216686999

Winke P. Gass S. Myford C. (2012). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30(2), 231–252. doi:10.1177/0265532212456968

Winke P. Van Gorp K. Gass S. VanPatten B. (2016, October 1). Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes. Paper presentation at the Midwest Association of Language Testers (MwALT) conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.