Article published In: The Assessment of Functional Adequacy in Language Performance: Special issue of the Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 (2022)
Edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder
[TASK 2:1] 2022
► pp. 8–32
Measurement of functional adequacy in different learning contexts
Rationale, key issues, and future perspectives
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Amsterdam.
Published online: 20 June 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00013.kui
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00013.kui
Abstract
Linguistic performance elicited by language tasks has generally been operationalized in terms of complexity,
accuracy, and fluency (CAF). However, this study argues that assessment of L2 proficiency is impossible without taking into
account the adequacy and efficacy of L2 performance. To that end, we developed a rating scale for measuring functional adequacy
(FA). In order to investigate the validity, reliability, and applicability of the rating scale, a number of studies are reviewed
in which FA was assessed by both expert and non-expert raters, in different learning contexts, for L2 and L1, involving various
source and target languages, proficiency levels, task types and modalities. We discuss perspectives and challenges for the use of
the FA rating scale, particularly with regard to task-based language assessment (TBLA).
Article outline
- Complexity, accuracy and fluency vs. functional adequacy
- Task-based language assessment
- Assessment of functional adequacy
- Task requirements
- Content
- Comprehensibility
- Coherence & Cohesion
- Testing the FA rating scale
- Studies in which the FA rating scale has been used
- Outcomes
- Use of the FA rating scale
- Relationship with CAF, task type, and language proficiency
- Discussion
- Note
References
References (59)
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some
reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language
Testing, 19(4), 453–476.
Becker, A. (2018). Not
to scale? An argument-based inquiry into the validity of an L2 writing scale. Assessing
Writing, 371, 1–12.
Bridgeman, B., Powers, D., Stone, E., & Mollaun, P. (2012). TOEFL
iBT speaking test scores as indicators of oral communicative language proficiency. Language
Testing 29(1), 91–108.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining
and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions
of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in
SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012a). The
effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and
non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions
of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in
SLA (pp. 121–142). John Benjamins.
Del Bono, F. (2019). Aspetti
pragmatici nella valutazione di testi scritti: Uno studio sull’adeguatezza funzionale in italiano
L2. In: E. Nuzzo, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Lingua
in contesto. La prospettiva pragmatica. Studi
AItLA 91 (pp. 231–244). Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (AitLA).
(2020). L’utilizzo
delle scale dell’adeguatezza funzionale su testi narrativi in L2: Uno studio esplorativo sugli effetti del task
design. In: E. Nuzzo, E. Santoro, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Valutazione
e misurazione delle produzioni orali e scritte in italiano lingua
seconda (pp. 71–82). Franco Cesati Editore.
De Meo, A., Maffia, M., & Vitale, G. (2019). La
competenze scritta in italiano L2 di apprendenti vulnerabili. Due scale di valutazione a
confronto. EL.LE, 8(3), 637–654.
Ekiert, M., Lampropoulou, S., Révész, A., & Torgersen, E. (2018). The
effects of task type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task
performance. In N. Taguchi, & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based
approaches to assessing
pragmatics (pp. 247–264). John Benjamins.
Faone, S., & Pagliara, F. (2017). How
to assess L2 information-gap tasks through FA rating scales. Paper presented
at TBLT 2017.
González-Lloret, M. (2016). A
practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Georgetown University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic
and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech
acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & IATBLT (n.d.). The
TBLT Language Learning Task Bank. [URL]
Herraiz Martínez, A. (2018). Functional
adequacy: The influence of English-medium instruction, English proficiency, and previous language learning
experiences. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana.
Herraiz Martínez, A., & Alcón Soler, E. (2019). Pragmatic
outcomes in the English-medium instruction context. Applied
Pragmatics, 1(1), 68–91.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions
of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.
Knoch, U. (2007). ‘Little
coherence, considerable strain for reader’: A comparison between two rating scales for the assessment of
coherence. Assessing
Writing, 12(2), 108-128.
(2009). Diagnostic
assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language
Testing, 26(2), 275–304.
(2011). Rating
scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come
from? Assessing
Writing, 16(2), 81–96.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Speaking
and writing tasks and their effects on second language
performance. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 364–377). Routledge.
(2017). Functional
adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language
Testing, 34(3), 321–336.
(2018). Assessing
functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based
approach. In N. Taguchi, & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based
approaches to assessing
pragmatics (pp. 265–286). John Benjamins.
(2021). Scoring
approaches: Scales/rubrics. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language
testing (pp. 125–134). Routledge.
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative
adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative
proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing
research (pp. 81–100). European Second Language Association.
(2016). In
defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 361, 5–33.
Martín Laguna, S. (forthcoming). Testing
functional adequacy in L2 writing across languages, levels and tasks. Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana.
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current
uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 361, 23–244.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining
and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of seond language
acquisition (pp. 717–761). Blackwell.
(2009). Towards
an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
Nuzzo, E., & Bove, G. (2020). Assessing
functional adequacy across tasks: A comparison of learners’ and speakers’ written
texts. E-JournALL, 7(2), 9–27.
Orrù, P. (2019). Misurare
l’adeguatezza funzionale in testi scritti di apprendenti di italiano L2. Italiano
LinguaDue, 11, 45–58.
Orrù, P., & Foti, E. (2020). Coerenza
e coesione nella valutazioni dell’adeguatezza funzionale: Un confronto tra i giudizi dei
valuatori. In: E. Nuzzo, E. Santoro, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Valutazione
e misurazione delle produzioni orali e scritte in italiano lingua
seconda (pp. 83–92). Franco Cesati Editore.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic
complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college level L2
writing. Applied
Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF:
Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.
(2017b). Osservare
l’interlingua. Percorsi di educazione linguistica efficace per ridurre le
diseguaglianze. In M. Vedonelli (Ed.), L’italiano
dei nuovi italiani. Atti del XIX Convegno Nazionale
GISCEL (pp. 505–520). Aracne.
(2017c). Une
application des recherches sur l’interlangue aux contextes d’enseignement. Le Français dans le
monde, 611, 109–120.
Pallotti, G., & Brezina, V. (2019). Morphological
complexity in written L2 texts. Second Language
Research, 35(1), 99–119.
Paquot, M. (2018). Phraseological
competence: A missing component in university entrance language tests? Insights from a study of EFL learners’ use of
statistical collocations. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 15(1), 29–43.
(2019). The
phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language
Research, 35(1), 121–145.
Phakiti, A. (2020). Likert-type
scale construction. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language
testing (pp. 102–114). Routledge.
Pill, J., & Smart, C. (2020). Rating:
Behavior and training. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language
testing (pp. 135–144). Routledge.
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. (2016). The
effects of complexity, accuracy and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task
performance. Applied
Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848.
Révész, A., & Brunfaut, T. (2021). Validating
assessments for research purposes. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language
testing (pp. 21–32). Routledge.
Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability
and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing
Writing, 15(1), 18–39.
Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability
of writing scores. An application of structural equation modeling. Language
Testing, 22(1) 1–30.
Timpe, V. (2013). Assessing
intercultural communicative competence. The dependence of receptive sociopragmatic competence and discourse competence on
learning opportunities and input. Peter Lang.
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). Pragmatics
in task-based language assessment. Opportunities and
challenges. In N. Taguchi, & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based
approaches to assessing
pragmatics (pp. 288–304). John Benjamins.
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E. (1995). Constructing
rating scales for second language tests. ELT
Journal, 49 (1), 3–12.
Cited by (18)
Cited by 18 other publications
Cornillie, Frederik, Julie Gijpen, Sameh Said-Metwaly, Steffen Luypaert & Wim Van Den Noortgate
East, Martin
2025. Broadening the horizon of task-based language teaching. In Broadening the Horizon of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 17], ► pp. 2 ff.
Kim, Miseong & Phil Hiver
López-Serrano, Sonia, Alicia Martínez-Flor & Ariadna Sánchez-Hernández
Qin, Jie & Dilin Liu
Vásquez Fernández, Claudia
Wu, Wangjiao & Jie Qin
Koizumi, Rie & Yo In'nami
Li, Wenchao, Zhentao Zhong & Haitao Liu
Tigchelaar, Magda & Gabrielle Forget
2024. French writing tasks for undergraduate learners. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 4:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
Wei, Ran & Xiaoyan Zhao
de Jong, Nivja H.
Kuiken, Folkert
Majidi, Abid el, Rick de Graaff & Daniel Janssen
Nguyen, Thi Thuy Minh & Thi Thanh Thuy Pham
2023. Skill acquisition based approach to teaching L2 pragmatics. In L2 Pragmatics in Action [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 58], ► pp. 243 ff.
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2022. Speaking. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 329 ff.
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2025. From CAF to CAFFA. In Broadening the Horizon of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 17], ► pp. 147 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
