Exploring the Relationship Between Self-Assessments and OPIc Ratings of Oral Proficiency in French

  • Magda TigchelaarEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 37)


The present study analyzed the self-assessed spoken French language abilities that students said they ‘can do’ in relation to the ACTFL proficiency scores they received on an oral proficiency interview by computer (OPIc). A secondary aim was to assess different scales that have been used to convert OPIc ratings to numeric scores.

French university students (N = 216) of varying proficiency levels rated a series of can-do statements related to speaking skills. They then completed the ACTFL OPIc test, which was rated by certified ACTFL raters. A series of regression analyses showed that the strength of the relationship between self-assessment and OPIc ratings was strongly influenced by the type of numeric scale used: When data were ranked ordinally and analyzed using an ordinal regression, a majority (65%) of variance in OPIc scores was explained by self-assessment scores. Analyzed using linear regression, when scores were converted to equal-interval scales, self-assessment scores explained approximately 30% of variance. On a graduated scale that reflected the increasing distances between ACTFL (2012) proficiency levels, only 20% of variance was accounted for.


Self-assessment Oral proficiency Can-do statements Concurrent validity Correlation Regression 


  1. ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines – speaking. Retrieved from
  2. ACTFL. (2015). NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements. Retrieved from
  3. Bachman, L. F. (1988). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 149–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brantmeier, C. (2006). Advanced L2 learners and reading placement: Self-assessment, CBT, and subsequent performance. System, 34(1), 15–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brecht, D., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, B. (1995). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 37–66). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, N. A., Dewey, D. P., & Cox, T. L. (2014). Assessing the validity of can-do statements in retrospective (then-now) self-assessment. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 261–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler, Y. G. (2016). Self-assessment of and for young learners’ foreign language learning. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Assessing young learners of English: Global and local perspectives (pp. 291–315). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrnes, H., & Ortega, L. (2008). The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chalhoub–Deville, M., & Deville, C. (1999). Computer adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, Y. M. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case study. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 235–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dandonoli, P., & Henning, G. (1990). An investigation of the construct validity of the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and oral interview procedure. Foreign Language Annals, 23(1), 11–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson, D. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data from the Russian front. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 6–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Glover, P. (2011). Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness, 20(2), 121–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kenyon, D. M., & Malabonga, V. M. (2001). Comparing examinees’ attitudes toward a computerized oral proficiency assessment. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 60–83. Available at
  19. Kenyon, D. M., & Tschirner, E. (2000). The rating of direct and semi-direct oral proficiency interviews: Comparing performance at lower proficiency levels. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 85–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laerd Statistics. (2013). Ordinal regression using SPSS Statistics. Available from
  21. Lange, D. L., & Lowe, P. (1987). Grading reading passages according to the ACTFL/ETS/ILR reading proficiency standard: Can it be learned? Selected papers from the 1986 Language Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 111–127). Monterey, CA: Defense Language Institute. Available at
  22. Lee, I. (2016). Putting students at the centre of classroom L2 writing assessment. Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(2), 258–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowe, P. (1985). The ILR proficiency scale as a synthesizing research principle: The view from the mountain. In J. J. Charles (Ed.), Foreign language proficiency in the classroom and beyond (pp. 9–54). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Available at
  24. Malabonga, V. M., Kenyon, D. M., & Carpenter, H. (2005). Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 22(1), 59–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malone, M., & Montee, M. (2010). Oral proficiency assessment: Current approaches and applications for post-secondary foreign language programs. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 972–986. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, L., Powers, C., & Donnelly, S. (2015). The Boren awards: A report of oral language proficiency gains during academic study abroad. New York: Institute of International Education. Available at
  27. Meredith, R. A. (1990). The oral proficiency interview in real life: Sharpening the scale. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 288–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Security Education Program. (2016). The language flagship. Retrieved from
  29. Nikolov, M. (2016). A framework for young EFL learners’ diagnostic assessment: ‘Can do statements’ and task types. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Assessing young learners of English: Global and local perspectives (pp. 65–92). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Purpura, J. E., & Turner, C. E. (2014) A learning-oriented assessment approach to understanding the complexities of classroom-based language assessment. Teachers College, Columbia University Roundtable in Second Language Studies: Roundtable on Learning-Oriented Assessment in Language Classrooms and Large Scale Assessment Contexts. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. Retrieved from
  32. Purpura, J. E., & Turner, C. E. (2015). Learning-oriented assessment in second and foreign language classrooms. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 255–272). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  33. Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Surface, E., Poncheri, R., & Bhavsar, K. (2008). Two studies investigating the reliability and validity of the English ACTFL OPIc with Korean test takers: The ACTFL OPIc validation project technical report. Retrieved from
  35. Tigchelaar, M., Bowles, R., Winke, P., & Gass, S. (2017). Assessing the validity of ACTFL can-do statements for spoken proficiency: A Rasch analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., Kennedy, S., Saito, K., & Crowther, D. (2014). Flawed self-assessment: Investigating self-and other-perception of second language speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tschirner, E. (2016). Listening and reading proficiency levels of college students. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 201–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tschirner, E., Bärenfänger, O., & Wanner, I. (2012). Assessing evidence of validity of assigning CEFR rating to the ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) and oral proficiency interview by computer (OPIc). (Technical Report 2012-US-PUB-1). Retrieved from Language Testing International:
  40. Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, J. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75. Available at
  41. VanPatten, B., Trego, D., & Hopkins, W. (2015). In-class vs. online testing in university-level language courses: A research report. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 659–668. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations