The notion of communicative competence has received wide attention in the past few years, and numerous attempts have been made to define it. Canale and Swain (1980) have reviewed these attempts and have developed a framework which defines several hypothesized components of communicative competence and makes the implicit claim that tests of components of communicative competence measure different abilities. In this study we examine the construct validity of some tests of components communicative competence and of a hypothesized model. Three distinct traits—linguistic competence, pragmatic competence and sociolinguistic competence—were posited as components of communicative competence. A multitrait‐multimethod design was used, in which each of the three hypothesized traits was tested using four methods: an oral interview, a writing sample, a multiple‐choice test and a self‐rating. The subjects were 116 adult non‐native speakers of English from various language and language‐learning backgrounds. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the plausibility of several causal models, involving from one to three trait factors. The results indicate that the model which best fits the data includes a general and two specific trait factors —grammatical/pragmatic competence and sociolinguistic competence. The relative importance of the trait and method factors in the various tests used is also indicated.

The trait structure of an experimental self-rating test of communicative language ability was investigated through the use of MTMM design and CFA procedure. The language abilities we attempted to measure comprised three main traits: grammatical competence, pragmatic competence, and socio linguistic competence. Three different question types were used. The subjects were 116 non-native English speakers from the Salt Lake City area. The results of this study indicate that self-ratings can be reliable and valid measures of communicative language abilities. The obtained reliabilities were much higher than had been expected, and all the self-rating measures had strong loadings on a general factor. In addition, some measures proved to be reasonably good indicators of specific language abilities. The measures of grammatical com petence appear to be better indicators of this trait than are the measures of pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence. Of the three question types used, the most effective appears to be that which asked about subjects' perceived diffi culty with various aspects of the language. The least effective question type was the so-called can-do question.

The validation of oral language proficiency tests has long been problematical. The most common approaches to this problem have involved concurrent validation procedures for relating “indirect” measures to so‐called “direct” measures. The most frequently used criterion in such studies has been the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) oral interview. In validating the FSI interview itself, however, criterion‐referenced procedures are not possible since an adequate operationally defined criterion for comparison is not likely t o be found. Therefore construct validation procedures are necessary. In this study a multitrait‐rnultimethod matrix comprising six measures representing combinations of two traits (speaking and reading) and three methods (interview, translation, self‐rating) was used t o examine the construct validity of the FS1 oral interview. The six measures were administered individually to 75 native Mandarin Chinese speakers of English. Data were analyzed using the Campbell‐Fiske criteria for convergent and discriminant validity and using confirmatory factor analysis. The results indicate both convergent and discriminant validity for the FSI interview. Of the numerous factor models tested against the data, the model which provides the best fit comprises a general factor, two trait factors, and three method factors. A more parsimonious model, with two correlated trait factors and three method factors, fits the data nearly equally well and provides a more interpretable factor structure. These results provide strong evidence against a model of unitary language competence and support a model of partially divisible language competence.

Nearly 10 years ago a relatively small group of applied linguists from several countries, with varied backgrounds and perspectives, braved the rigours of the New England winter and the vagaries of convention planning, which forced them to squeeze into a single hotel room for two days, in order to participate in a discussion of the issues and problems of language testing. For many who were at that first colloquium, it was both surprising and gratifying to find that there were others who shared their interest in this abstruse enterprise. Equally amazing was the discovery that not only did we share common professional interests, but we were in many other ways 'kindred spirits'. As Palmer, Groot and Trosper observed in their Foreword to the volume of papers that came out of that first colloquium, 'the colloquium has enabled people with a common narrowly-defined interest to get to know each other and to develop the closeness and the lines of communication that allow each to profit more fully from the work of others' (p. vii). That observation is as true today as it was then. Indeed, it is this spirit of camaraderie, of personal closeness, based on mutual respect, that has nourished the spirited annual debates of professional issues and year-around communication among colleagues who are also friends that have become the hallmarks of the Language Testing Research Colloquium.

This paper provides some empirical support for the hypothesis that there are two types of language control: compartmentalized control in which performance on discrete point tests or achievement tests is relatively unrelated to performance on communication tests and intergrated control in which the two types of performance are more highly related. Data is presented from three studies: one, a study of individual differences; the other two, controlled experiments in foreign language instruction. The evidence tends, in general, to support the posited distinction, and three factors are suggested as accounting for the two types of competence. Next, the paper considers the hypothesis that integration indicates acquisition in Monitor Theory terms, and the data is interpreted in terms of this hypothesis. Finally, a method of teaching for integration is suggested which incorporates the three factors identified in the empirical studies.