The COVID-19 pandemic pushed the Iowa State University administration to impose face coverings and other safety regulations across the university campus. To comply with these safety measures, several changes to the English Placement Test of Oral Communication (EPT OC) had to be made. This paper discusses how the EPT OC was adapted to comply with the safety regulations mandated by the university administration and best ensure the safety of students and raters. It also describes the different considerations that were made prior to implementing these adaptations, and our thoughts while administering and rating the test. The paper concludes with what might be learned from administering the OC test during the pandemic.

Language learners often transfer the sounds and prosody of their native language into their second language, but this influence can also flow in the opposite direction, with the second language influencing the first. Among other variables, language proficiency is known to affect the degree and directionality of cross-linguistic influence. However, little is known about how second language learning affects listeners’ perception of their native language. To begin addressing this gap, we examined the relationship between learners’ second language proficiency and their category goodness ratings in their native language. Thirty-nine English-speaking learners of Spanish listened to English words that began with voiced and voiceless stop consonants and were asked to rate how well the word represented the intended word on a 5-point scale. To create a voicing continuum, we manipulated the voice onset time of the word-initial stop in each target item from 125 ms of prevoicing to 100 ms of aspiration, in 25 ms steps. Proficiency did not affect the perception of voiced targets, but both proficiency and L2 stop production affected the perception of voiceless targets.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014) states that “It is incorrect to use the unqualified phrase ‘the validity of the test’” (p. 11). Although the Standards clearly states that it is incorrect to use the phrase “validity of the test” because “it is the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses that are evaluated, not the test itself” (p. 11), many authors still use this terminology. This study examines how frequently this occurs, why this may occur, and how to interpret this phenomenon. First, examination of articles published in Language Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly between 2011–2022 resulted in 233 articles being identified as including the expression “validity of + test” at least once. Next, the context around the occurrences of “use(s)” and “interpretation(s)” within these articles was analyzed to determine whether the author(s) referred to test interpretation and use. This was interpreted as evidence that the authors were familiar with the Standards’ definition of validity, even though they used language that contradicted the Standards’ guidelines. This study sheds light on the extent to which authors adhere to the Standards’ guidelines and potential factors contributing to deviations from the recommended terminology.