1. Spiros Papageorgiou University of Michigan spapag@umich.edu
Using the Common European Framework of Reference to Report Language Test Scores
Spiros Papageorgiou
University of Michigan

2. Overview The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)
The Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR
Standard setting
An example of a CEFR standard setting study in Colombia

3. The CEFR Reference document—not prescriptive
Basis for the elaboration of language syllabi, curricula, examinations, and textbooks
Language objectives: Description of what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication
Six main levels of proficiency: A1 (lowest), A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 (highest)

4. The Manual for Relating Examinations to the CEFR
It aims to “help the providers of examinations to develop, apply and report transparent, practical procedures in a cumulative process of continuing improvement in order to situate their examination(s) in relation to the Common European Framework” (p. 1).

5. Stages for Relating Test Content and Test Scores to the CEFR
Familiarization
Specification
Standardization training and benchmarking
Standard setting
Validation

6. Standard Setting
The decision making process of classifying examination results in a number of successive levels
Performance Level Descriptions (PLD): statements describing what learners can do with language (e.g., CEFR descriptors)
Performance Level Labels (PLL): labels of PLD (e.g., A1–C2)
Cut scores: the boundary between two successive levels
Participation of expert judges (panelists)

7. PLL
PLD C2
Can write clear, smoothly flowing, complex texts in an appropriate and effective style and a logical structure which helps the reader to find significant points. C1
Can write clear, well-structured texts of complex subjects, underlining the relevant salient issues, expanding and supporting points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples, and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion. B2
Can write clear, detailed texts on a variety of subjects related to his field of interest, synthesising and evaluating information and arguments from a number of sources. B1
Can write straightforward connected texts on a range of familiar subjects within his field of interest, by linking a series of shorter discrete elements into a linear sequence. A2
Can write a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple connectors like “and”, “but” and “because”. A1
Can write simple isolated phrases and sentences.

8. An Example of a Standard Setting Study in Colombia
Reporting scores for the Michigan English Test on the CEFR levels
13 participants from the 9 Binational centers in Colombia
Familiarization with the CEFR
Training with item difficulty (Pilot Form B)
Angoff standard setting method
First round of judgments
Pilot Form A statistical information
Second round of judgments

9. Standard Setting Validity Evidence
Procedural validity: examining whether the procedures followed were practical and implemented properly; that feedback given to the judges was effective; and that documentation was sufficiently compiled.
Internal validity: addressing issues of accuracy and consistency of the standard setting results.
External validation: collecting evidence from independent sources that support the outcome of the standard setting meeting.

10. The Familiarization Task
A1 = 1, A2 = 2, B1 = 3, B2 = 4, C1 = 5, C2 = 6

11. Procedural Validity: Internalization of the CEFR
Correlation of descriptor level judgments with the CEFR during the Familiarization stage
Descriptors J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9
J10
J11
J12
J13
Listening
.85
.89
.80
.81
.71
.77
.79
.88
.70
.91
.84
Reading
.92
.86
.69
.82
.62
.90
Vocabulary
.93
.96
.76
.73
.97
Grammar
.94
.87
.95
.78

12. Internal Validity: Method Consistency
Standard error of judgments should be ≤ ½ of the standard error of the test (Section I 1.71 and Section II 1.74 )
Cut score
SEj incl. extreme ratings
SEj excl. extreme ratings
Section I B1
1.97
1.57
Section I B2
1.34
Section I C1
1.69
Section II B1
2.00
1.71
Section II B2
2.30
1.62
Section II C1
2.57

13. Internal Validity: Decision Consistency
Calculating agreement coefficient rho (p0; max .98) and kappa (k; max 71)
Cut score p0 k
Section I B1
.90
.68
Section I B2
.88
.70
Section I C1
.97
.61
Section II B1
.95
.64
Section II B2
.86
.71
Section II C1
.94
.65

14. Internal Validity: Intra-judge Consistency
Correlation of mean of judgments with empirical item difficulty
MET section/round of judgments
Correlation
Section I, Round 1
.42
Section I, Round 2
.83
Section II, Round 1
.73
Section II, Round 2
.92
We based the final decision on the round 2 judgments

15. Internal Validity: Inter-judge Consistency
Indices of agreement and consistency
Index
Section I
Section II
ICC
.94 W
.80
.76
Alpha

16. External Validity: Reasonableness of the Cut Scores
Classification of Pilot Form A test takers (N = 660) into CEFR levels
Level
Section I
Section II A2
105 (15.91%)
55 (8.33%) B1
408 (61.81%)
323 (48.94%) B2
95 (14.39%)
214 (32.43%) C1
52 (7.88%)
68 (10.30%)

17. External Validity: Comparison of Level Classifications
Exact and adjacent level agreement of classifications (N = 302) provided by a test center and the cut score
Agreement
Section I
Section II
Exact level
122 (40.40%)
92 (30.46%)
Within 1 level
290 (96.03%)
264 (87.42%)

18. Final Stage Before Reporting Test Scores: Equating
A statistical procedure used to allow for comparisons of scores obtained on different test forms
Adjustment of differences in test form difficulty (but not content)
Scaled scores, not percentages
Examinee position on the language ability scale
Scores are comparable across different administrations
Linked to the CEFR cut scores

19. Reported Scores
Both section scores should be taken into account when interpreting the test results for use in decision-making
CEFR Level
MET Section I scores
MET Section II scores C1
64 and above B2
53–63 B1
40–52 A2
39 or below

20. For more information visit www.lsa.umich.edu/eli/testing