Comparing the OPI and the OPIc: The Effect of Test Method on Oral Proficiency Scores and Student Preference

Abstract

While studies have been done to rate the validity and reliability of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and Oral Proficiency Interview–Computer (OPIc) independently, a limited amount of research has analyzed the interexam reliability of these tests, and studies have yet to be conducted comparing the results of Spanish language learners who take both exams. For this study, 154 Spanish language learners of various proficiency levels were divided into two groups and administered both the OPI and OPIc within a 2‐week period using a counterbalanced design. In addition, study participants took both a pre‐ and postsurvey that gathered data about their language learning background, familiarity with the OPI and OPIc, preparation and test‐taking strategies, and evaluations of each exam. The researchers found that 54.5% of the participants received the same rating on the OPI and OPIc, with 13.6% of examinees scoring higher on the OPI and 31.8% scoring higher on the OPIc. While the results found that students scored significantly better on the OPIc, the overall effect size was quite small. The authors also found that the overwhelming majority of the participants preferred the OPI to the OPIc. This research begins to fill important gaps and provides empirical data to examine the comparability of the Spanish OPI and OPIc.

A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Spanish Past Narrations From the ACTFL OPI and OPIc

“…In particular, the OPI and the OPIc result in rather similar scores for candidates who sit for both exams. However, Thompson et al () found that learners tended to score higher on the OPIc than on the OPI in Spanish. In spite of the generally higher scores given to students on the OPIc, they held a less favorable opinion of asynchronous, monologic interface.…”

“…Thompson, Cox, and Knapp () compared Spanish learners’ preferences and performances on the OPI and OPIc in order to establish the concurrent validity of the OPIc. When analyzing data from 154 examinees who completed both the OPI and OPIc exams in Spanish within 3 weeks of each other, the researchers found that 54.5% ( n = 84) of 154 OPIs and OPIcs resulted in the exact same ratings with 13.6% ( n = 21) of examinees scoring higher on the OPI and 31.8% ( n = 49) scoring higher on the OPIc (pp.…”

“…In 2006, an asynchronous electronic interface of the OPI was made available in which candidates are asked to record themselves responding to questions delivered aurally via computer, labeled the Oral Proficiency Interview‐computer (OPIc). Thompson, Cox, and Knapp () found that both instruments produced similar results but that many students in their sample who scored at the Advanced Low level on the traditional OPI scored one sublevel higher on the OPIc. The primary objective of the present study is to analyze lexical features, i.e., lexical diversity and lexical density, and discursive features, i.e., temporal and repair fluency, of students’ speech from a subset of OPI and OPIc exams to examine the relationship between the language elicited from each exam type, i.e., face‐to‐face and via computer.…”

Future directions in assessment: Influences of standards and implications for language learning

“…However, test designers still need a robust plan to make a solid validity argument: that is, that the scores from the standardized tests are interpreted correctly and applied appropriately. Applied linguists and educators must continually question, as researchers have (e.g., Bachman, 1988;Clark & Clifford, 1988;Loomis, 2015;Malone, 2003;Thompson, Cox, & Knapp, 2016;Weir, 2005) the following: Are the ways in which ACTFL standardized test scores are used appropriate? Are score interpretations meaningful?…”

Understanding Intermediate-Level Speakers’ Strengths and Weaknesses: An Examination of OPIc Tests From Korean Learners of English

“…In an attempt to help instructors understand differences in levels, Liskin-Gasparro (1996) analyzed the communication strategies of IH and Advanced Low (AL) Spanish speakers and found that the AL speakers used a broader range of communicative strategies; however, she did not analyze other aspects of the interview samples and did not look at the differences among the Intermediate sublevels. Apart from this study, most of the research has focused on learners' expected proficiency outcomes at particular points in their program of study (Carroll, 1967;Chambless, 2012;Glisan & Foltz, 1998;Gouoni & Feyten, 1999) or has compared learners' results on the two alternate forms of the assessment, the OPIc and the OPI (Surface, Poncheri, & Bhavsar, 2008;SWA Consulting, 2009;Thompson, Cox, & Knapp, 2016). In contrast, this The degree to which the examinee completed the task presented as defined by the major level Text type Text length The extent to which the amount of language completed the function of the task (words and phrases, sentences, strings of sentences, or connected paragraphs) Discourse organization…”