STANAG OPI Testing Julie J. Dubeau Bucharest BILC 2008

Julie J. Dubeau Bill Who???

Julie J. Dubeau

Are We All On the Same Page? An Exploratory Study of OPI Ratings Across NATO Countries Using the NATO STANAG 6001 Scale* *This research was completed in 2006 as part of a M.A. Thesis in Applied Linguistics

Julie J. Dubeau Presentation Outline Context Research Questions Literature Review Methodology Results –Ratings –Raters –Scale Conclusion

Julie J. Dubeau NATO Language Testing Context Standardized Language Profile (SLP) based on the NATO STANDARDIZATION AGREEMENT (NATO STANAG) 6001 Language Proficiency Levels (Ed 1? Ed 2?) –26 NATO countries, 20 Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries & others …

Julie J. Dubeau Interoperability Problem? Language training is central within armed forces due to the increasing number of peace-support operations, and is considered as having an important role in achieving interoperability among the various players. “ The single most important problem identified by almost all partners as an impediment to developing interoperability with the Alliance has been shortcomings in communications ” (EAPC (PARP) D, 1997, 1, p.10).

Julie J. Dubeau Overarching Research Question Since no known study had investigated inter-rater reliability in this context, the main research question was: How comparable or consistent are ratings across NATO raters and countries?

Julie J. Dubeau Research Questions Research questions pertaining to the ratings RQ1 Research questions pertaining raters’ training and background RQ2 Research questions pertaining to the rating process and to the scale RQ3

Julie J. Dubeau Research Questions RQ1-Ratings: How do ratings of the same oral proficiency interviews (OPIs) compare from rater to rater? Would the use of plus levels increase rater agreement? How do the ratings of the OPIs compare from country to country? Are there differences in scores within the same country?

Julie J. Dubeau Research Questions RQ2-Raters’ training and background: Are there differences in ratings between raters who have received varying degrees of tester/rater training and STANAG training? Did very experienced raters score more reliably than lesser experienced ones? Are experienced raters scoring as reliably as trained raters? Are there differences in ratings between participants who test part-time versus full-time, are native or non-native speakers of English, and are from ‘Older’ and ‘Newer’ NATO countries?

Julie J. Dubeau Research Questions RQ3-Rating process and scale use: Do differing rating practices affect ratings? Do raters appear to use the scale in similar ways? What are the raters’ comments regarding the use and application of the scale?

Julie J. Dubeau Literature Review Testing Constructs –What are we testing? General proficiency & Why Rating scales Rater Variance – How do raters vary? Rater/scale interaction Rater training & background

Julie J. Dubeau Methodology Design of study: Exploratory survey –2 Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs A & B) –Rater data questionnaire –Questionnaire accompanying each sample OPI Participants : Countries recruited at BILC Seminar in Sofia raters from 18 countries and 2 NATO units

Julie J. Dubeau Analysis: –Rating comparisons –Original ratings –‘Plus’ ratings –Rater comparisons –Training –Background –Country to country comparisons Within country dispersion –Rating process Rating factors –Rater/scale interaction Scale user-friendliness

Julie J. Dubeau Results RQ1- Summary Ratings : To compare OPI ratings and to explore the efficacy of ‘ plus ratings ’. –Some rater-to-rater differences –‘Plus’ levels brought ratings closer to the mean –Some country-to-country differences –Greater ‘within-country’ dispersion in some countries

Julie J. Dubeau View of OPI ratings sample A

Julie J. Dubeau Results Sample A (L1) All Ratings (with +) LevelsNumbers% Within Level 1 range Within Level 2 range Within Level 3 range 11.0 Total

Julie J. Dubeau All Countries’ Means for Sample A Overall Country Mean Country numbers

Julie J. Dubeau All Ratings for Sample B (level 2) LevelsNumbers% Total9693.2

Julie J. Dubeau View of OPI ratings sample B

Julie J. Dubeau All Countries’ Means for Sample B

Julie J. Dubeau Results RQ2- Summary Raters: To investigate rater training and scale training and see how (or if) they impacted the ratings, and to explore how various background characteristics impacted the ratings –Trained raters scored within the mean, especially for sample B –Experienced raters did not do as well as scale- trained raters –Full-time raters scored closer to mean –‘New’ NATO raters scored slightly closer to mean –NNS raters scored slightly closer to mean

Julie J. Dubeau substantial to lotsnone to little Frequency 63.27% 36.73% Tester (Rater) Training

Julie J. Dubeau Years of Experience 5 years +4 to 5 years2 to 3 years0 to 1 year Frequency 49.5% 15.84% 19.8% 14.85%

Julie J. Dubeau substantial to lotsnone to little Percent 40.0% 60.0% STANAG Scale Training

Julie J. Dubeau ‘Old’ vs. ‘New’ NATO Countries Summary of Tester Trg Little Lots Total Newer NATO member? Yes No Total

Julie J. Dubeau ‘Old’ vs. ‘New’ NATO Countries Rating OPI B Correct? Yes No Total Newer NATO member? Yes No Total Other/Missing

Julie J. Dubeau Results Raters’ Background Conducts Testing Full-time? Yes 34 (33.0 %) No 67 (65.0 %) Full-time testers more reliable (accurate) –NNS (60%) raters better trained? –‘New’ raters better trained?

Julie J. Dubeau Results RQ3- Summary Scale: To explore the ways in which raters used the various STANAG statements and rating factors to arrive at their ratings. –Rating process did not affect ratings significantly –3 main ‘types’ of raters emerged: Evidence-based Intuitive Extra-contextual

Julie J. Dubeau Results An ‘ evidenced-based ’ rating for Sample B (level 2): I compared the candidate ’ s performance with the STANAG criteria (levels 2 and 3) and decided that he did not meet the requirements for level 3 with regard to flexibility and the use of structural devices. Errors were frequent not only in low frequency structures, but in some high frequency areas as well. (Rater 90 – rated 2)

Julie J. Dubeau Results An ‘ intuitive ’ rating for Sample A (level 1): I would say that just about every single sentence in the interpretation of the level 2 speaking could be applied to this man. And because of that I would say that he is literally at the top of level 2. He is on the verge of level 3 literally. So I would automatically up him to a low 3. (Rater 1- rated 3)

Julie J. Dubeau Results An ‘extra-contextual’ rating for Sample A (level 1): Level 3 is the basic level needed for officers in (my country). I think the candidate could perform the tasks required of him. He could easily be bulldozed by native speakers in a meeting, but would hold his own with non-native speakers. He makes mistakes that very rarely distort meaning and are rarely disturbing. (Rater 95 – rated 2)

Julie J. Dubeau Implications Training not equal in all countries Scale interpretation Plus levels useful Different grids, speaking tests Institutional perspectives

Julie J. Dubeau Limitations & Future Research Participants may not have rated this way in their own countries OPIs new to some participants Future research could –Get participants to test –Investigate rating grids –Look at other skills

Julie J. Dubeau Conclusion of Research So, are we all on the same page? YES! BUT… Plus levels were instrumental in bridging gap Training was found to be key to reliability More in-country training should be the first step toward international benchmarking.

Thank You! Are We All On the Same Page? An Exploratory Study of OPI Ratings Across NATO Countries Using the NATO STANAG 6001 Scale The full thesis is available on the CDA website Or google Dubeau thesis