Interaction in the oral proficiency interview: Problems of validity

Marysia Johnson


This article reports on the findings of a discourse analysis study whose purpose was to provide answers to the following research question: What kind of speech event is the OPI? Is it more like an everyday, friendly conversation, an interview, or something else?

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Bachman, L.
(1988) Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10: 149–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L., & S. Savignon
(1986) The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal 70.4: 380–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & G. Yule
(1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.L.D.
(1972) Foreign language testing: Theory and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Clark, J.L.D., & R. Clifford
(1988) The FSI/ILR/ACTFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status, and needed research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10: 129–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Service
(1989) Oral proficiency testing manual. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Hughes, A.
(1989) Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1997) What kind of speech event is the Oral Proficiency Interview: Problems of construct validity. Unpublished Georgetown University Dissertation.
(1997) Interaction in the Oral Proficiency Interview. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Annual Conference, Orlando 1997.
Johnson, M., & A. Tyler
(1998) Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural conversation? In R. Young & A.W. He (eds), Taking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & M. Johnson
(1998) Natural context?: Collaboration, conversational involvement and the OPI . Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle 1998.
Jones, E.E., & H.B. Gerard
(1967) Foundation of social psychology. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & W. Frawley
(1985) Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal 69.40: 337–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10: 181–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A.
(1992) The structural organization of a language interview: A conversation analytic perspective. System 20: 373–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J.
(1984) The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Gateway to testing and curriculum. Foreign Language Annals 17: 475–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, P.
(1983) The ILR interview: Origins, applications, pitfalls, and implications. Die Unterrichts Praxis 2: 230–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) Proficiency: Panacea, framework, process? A reply to Kramsh, Schultz, and in particular, to Bachman and Savignon. Modern Language Journal 70.4: 391–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) ILR handbook on oral interview testing. Washington, DC: DLI/LS Oral Interview. Google Scholar
McNamara, T.
(1996) Measuring second language performance. London: Addisson Wesley Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1996) Interaction in second language performance assessment. Plenary address. American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference. Chicago IL, 26 March 1996.
Messick, S.
(1989) Validity. In R.L. Linn (ed.), Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan, pp. 13–104.Google Scholar
Mishler, E.
(1986) Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, S.
(1992) Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interview. Language Testing 9: 173–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S., & R. Berwick
(1992) The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency examinations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 159–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language 50.4: 696–735. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S.
(1985) Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal 69: 129–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., & H. Sacks
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotics 8: 287–327. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson, & H. Sacks
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–82. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990) Conversational analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11: 3–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E.
(1982) Affective considerations in language testing. Modern Language Journal 66: 13–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning 33: 527–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second/foreign language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10: 165–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A.
(1988) Introduction to the assessment of foreign language oral proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10.2: 121–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Lier, L.
(1989) Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly 23: 489–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Young, R., & Milanovic
(1992) Discourse variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Crossref
Young, R.
(1995a) Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning 45.1: 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995b) Discontinuous interlanguage development and its implications for oral proficiency rating scales. Applied Language Learning 6: 13–26.Google Scholar