Assessing the Validity of ACTFL Can‐Do Statements for Spoken Proficiency
A Rasch Analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11538012 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Magda Tigchelaar (0000-0001-7528-4958, Michigan State University, corresponding author), Ryan P Bowles (0000-0001-6705-8416, Michigan State University), Paula Winke (0000-0002-8169-650X, Michigan State University), Susan M Ga (0000-0001-5222-3319, Michigan State University) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 584-600 |
| Publication date | 2017-08-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Foreign Language Annals (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0015-718X • E-ISSN: 1944-9720 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/flan.12286 |
| OpenAlex | W2744529727 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 18 |
| References cited | 24 |
The NCSSFL‐ACTFL Can‐Do Statements describe what language learners can do at the various ACTFL proficiency sublevels. Unlike the European equivalent of the Can‐Do Statements (the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages), few researchers have assessed the construct validity of the NCSSFL‐ACTFL statements. Concerns have included whether the difficulty levels of the skills described in the statements match the statements’ assigned proficiency levels and whether each statement accurately indicates the underlying construct: language proficiency on the ACTFL subscales. This study addressed those two concerns. Undergraduate Spanish learners at an American university (N = 382) self‐assessed their speaking proficiency by responding to a selection of 50 NCSSFL‐ACTFL Can‐Do Statements. A Rasch analysis revealed 15 misfitting items that did not fit the model. The suspected reasons for the misfit were that the statements were vague, described experiences that the learners may not have had, or assessed multiple skills in a single statement. However, 35 statements fit the model. Discussed are how the NCSSFL‐ACTFL Can‐Do Statements can be used to self‐assess proficiency and how the statements should be assessed for content validity and psychometric value
Construct (python library · Construct validity · Developmental psychology · Item response theory · Language proficiency · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Polytomous Rasch model · Psychometrics · Rasch model · Statement (logic · Clinical Psychology · Computer Science · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Multilingual Education and Policy · Psychology · Second Language Learning and Teaching
A revised model of feedback-seeking behavior in SLA
Language learning grit, achievement, and anxiety among L2 and L3 learners in Russia
Going Global
Desafios Da Sustentabilidade Do Ensino De Português Língua Mundial Nos E.U.A
Elicited Imitation Tasks as a Measure of L2 Proficiency
A closer look at a marginalized test method
A systematic review of proficiency assessment methods in bilingualism research
ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview – computer (OPIc)
The effects of bilingual proficiency on the acceptability of motion encoding strategies
Virtual exchanges for intercultural communication development
Assessing the Validity of ACTFL Can‐Do Statements for Spoken Proficiency
Assisted self‐assessment to optimize the OPIc test experience
Engineering engagement
Future directions in assessment
Self‐assessment
Grand challenges and great potential in foreign language teaching and learning
Proficiency development and smartphone usage in study abroad
Beyond L2 Learners
Proficiency Scales
The Concept of Validity.
Item response theory.
A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment
Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test
Self-assessment of second language ability
The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio
Self-assessment in second language testing
Self-assessment of Japanese as a second language
Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests
Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales
Self-assessment in second language testing
Language Testing
Advanced L2 learners and reading placement
Assessing the Validity of ACTFL Can‐Do Statements for Spoken Proficiency
Assessing the Validity of Can‐Do Statements in Retrospective (Then‐Now) Self‐Assessment
A rating formulation for ordered response categories
| Unique citing works | 18 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2017 - 2026 (10) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |