A closer look at a marginalized test method: Self-assessment as a measure of speaking proficiency

Abstract

Abstract Second language (L2) teachers may shy away from self-assessments because of warnings that students are not accurate self-assessors. This information stems from meta-analyses in which self-assessment scores on average did not correlate highly with proficiency test results. However, researchers mostly used Pearson correlations, when polyserial could be used. Furthermore, self-assessments today can be computer adaptive. With them, nonlinear statistics are needed to investigate their relationship with other measurements. We wondered, if we explored the relationship between self-assessment and proficiency test scores using more robust measurements (polyserial correlation, continuation-ratio modeling), would we find different results? We had 807 L2-Spanish learners take a computer-adaptive, L2-speaking self-assessment and the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview – computer (OPIc). The scores correlated at .61 (polyserial). Using continuation-ratio modeling, we found each unit of increase on the OPIc scale was associated with a 131% increase in the odds of passing the self-assessment thresholds. In other words, a student was more likely to move on to higher self-assessment subsections if they had a higher OPIc rating. We found computer-adaptive self-assessments appropriate for low-stakes L2-proficiency measurements, especially because they are cost-effective, make intuitive sense to learners, and promote learner agency.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.