A systematic review of proficiency assessment methods in bilingualism research

Abstract

Aims and objectives: Proficiency assessment is a key methodological consideration in the field of bilingualism, and previous reviews have highlighted significant variability in both the use and type of assessment methods. Yet, previous reviews of proficiency assessment methods in bilingualism have failed to consider key study characteristics (e.g., methodology and subfield) that may impact the choice of proficiency assessment method. This paper provides an updated systematic review of proficiency assessment methods in the field of bilingualism, analyzing trends within different methodological approaches and linguistic subfields. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic review was conducted, examining recent research articles in the field of bilingualism, broadly defined. A total of 17 journals (of 100) and 140 empirical research articles (of 478) with bilingual participants fit the relevant inclusionary criteria. Data and analysis: Studies were coded for several characteristics, including methodology (e.g., quantitative vs qualitative), linguistic subfield (e.g., psycholinguistics), and the method of proficiency assessment (e.g., standardized testing, self-reporting). Findings/conclusions: Analyses revealed a number of different methods of proficiency assessment currently used in bilingualism research. However, different trends were found by methodology type and linguistic subfield. Broadly, the results revealed greater use of proficiency assessments in quantitative research than qualitative research. Moreover, while there was significant variability in all of the subfields examined, several within-subfield trends were identified. Originality: This study provides an update to previous findings, establishing current proficiency assessment practices in bilingualism research. In addition, acknowledging the unique needs of different types of research, this study is the first to examine trends within different methodological approaches (i.e., quantitative vs qualitative) and subfields of bilingualism (e.g., psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics). Significance/implications: The notable variability in proficiency assessment methods within different subfields suggests a greater need for subfield-specific norms to facilitate comparative analysis. Several key considerations are given for the selection of proficiency assessment methods in bilingualism research.

Measuring bilingual language dominance: An examination of the reliability of the Bilingual Language Profile

“…Given the complex and multi-faceted nature of proficiency, as well as the different goals of proficiency measurements in different settings, the operationalization and measurement of proficiency has taken many different forms (for a review see Gaillard & Tremblay, 2016). Among the most common measures of proficiency, as detailed by Olson et al, (2021), are standardized testing (e.g., Test of English as a Foreign Language [Educational Testing Service, 2020]), self-assessment (e.g., Language…”

Bilinguals on the footbridge: the role of foreign-language proficiency in moral decision making

“…L2p represents an individual's degree of L2 knowledge and skills to function in specific communicative situations and modalities (Hulstijn, 2011 ). The construct encompasses multiple subfactors, including productive and receptive abilities across phonological, lexico-semantic, morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors (Gullifer et al, 2021 ; Olson, 2023 ). L2p ranks among the most widely studied individual variables in bilingualism research (Olson, 2023 ; Park et al, 2022 ), be it as a cut-off variable (for sample selection), as a controlled variable (for group matching) or as a manipulated variable (for testing its impact on specific outcome measures) (Hulstijn, 2012 ; Olson, 2023 ).…”

“…The construct encompasses multiple subfactors, including productive and receptive abilities across phonological, lexico-semantic, morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors (Gullifer et al, 2021 ; Olson, 2023 ). L2p ranks among the most widely studied individual variables in bilingualism research (Olson, 2023 ; Park et al, 2022 ), be it as a cut-off variable (for sample selection), as a controlled variable (for group matching) or as a manipulated variable (for testing its impact on specific outcome measures) (Hulstijn, 2012 ; Olson, 2023 ). It can be measured with objective methods (e.g., standardized tests, experimental tasks) or via subjective ratings (e.g., self-report questionnaires).…”

“…It can be measured with objective methods (e.g., standardized tests, experimental tasks) or via subjective ratings (e.g., self-report questionnaires). The latter are dominant in the literature, accounting for more than 60% of published studies (Olson, 2023 ). The same is true for MFLE studies – in fact, 86% of those considered in this work used subjective measures exclusively (see the Supplementary material).…”

Predicting naming scores from language history: A little immersion goes a long way, and self-rated proficiency matters more than percent use

“…Measuring language proficiency, language dominance, and degree of bilingualism is central to psycholinguistic research on bilingualism and in clinical evaluations of bilingual patients (Gasquoine & Gonzalez, 2012;Lorenzen & Murray, 2008;Olson, 2023;Paplikar et al, 2021;Rivera Mindt et al, 2008). Language proficiency typically refers to how quickly, accurately, and easily a person can retrieve words and other linguistic structures, and facility of language use across various communicative contexts (Hulstijn, 2011).…”