1
2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
Backgrounder
Introduction
This Backgrounder documents the evidence consulted and the methodology applied in the
establishment of a language proficiency standard for the Canadian Alliance of Audiology and Speech-
Language Pathology Regulators (CAASPR) in 2017. The background research was conducted by
consultants with expertise in regulatory policy and language proficiency standard setting. The CAASPR
Language Proficiency Standard was presented to the Board and approved on November 6, 2017.
Context
Internationally educated health professionals seeking registration in Canada must meet local standards
of practice. These professional standards are set by legislation and operationalized by provincial
regulatory bodies. Commonly, this process includes academic credentials recognition, evidence of
recent clinical practice, and successful completion of professional competency examinations. For
international applicants whose language of training and practice has not been in one of Canada’s official
languages (English or French) demonstration of language proficiency is often an additional requirement
(Figure 1).
Figure 1: Registration Pathway for Internationally Educated Health Professionals
Within this context, language proficiency is a legal requirement designed to uphold professional
standards of practice. In addition to ensuring that international applicants have an equivalent level of
language ability to that of local practitioners, the language proficiency standard is concerned with the
protection of the public. The language proficiency standard is designed to ensure that international
applicants have a level of language that enables them to comprehend practice policies, interact
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
2
effectively within a health care team, and critically, communicate with clients and their families or
guardians.
The CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard is intended as a harmonized standard across Canadian
provinces. The standard upholds the principles of the fair-access law which outlines the broad, general
duty of regulatory bodies to have transparent, objective, impartial and fair registration practices. These
principles are upheld as best practice guidelines by CAASPR members and inform the development of
standards, including the language proficiency standard.
To meet these principles, the language proficiency standard must clearly describe the conditions under
which evidence of language proficiency is required, the rationale for the language proficiency standard,
and evidence that the standard is relevant to practice. Finally, the way in which candidates meet the
standard must be objective and accessible.
Methodology
In an effort to ensure that registration practices are objective and fair to international candidates,
regulators continuously review their policies and by-laws. With support from the federal government,
attention has also been paid to harmonizing registration policies across provinces to facilitate labour
mobility.
Building on existing knowledge and practice, this project recommends a standardized language
proficiency standard that would be acceptable to all CASSPR members. The following steps were taken:
1. Scan test use across the environment
2. Leverage research conducted to benchmark the language demands of the profession
3. Analyse research available on comparing, linking, and mapping test scores
The next section describes each of these steps in detail.
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
3
1. Scan of Current language Proficiency Standards Practices in the Environment
A scan of existing language proficiency practices for similar professions and across jurisdictions revealed
that two tests are commonly used by regulators: the International English Language Testing System
(IELTS)1 and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)2. In Canada, the Canadian Language
Benchmarks, or CLB, are standardized proficiency levels used as a reference for government-sponsored
immigrant language training programs and immigration policy. These CLB benchmarks have also been
used in research to analyse the language levels required in Professional practice (see Table 1).
Table 1: Language Proficiency Standards Scan
Agency CLB Benchmarking IELTS TOEFL
S W L R O S W L R O S W R L
ACOTRO 8 8 8 9 7 7.5 6.5 7 7 92 26 22 22 22
Alliance PT 8 8 8 9 7 92 21 21 21 21
CSMLS 8 7 7 -- 24 22 22 20
FORAC -- -- -- -- 7.5 -- -- -- -- --
Nursing 8 7 8 8 7 7 7 7.5 6.5 -- -- -- -- --
Australia (Aud) -- -- -- -- -- 7 7 7 7 -- -- -- -- --
New Zealand (Aud) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
UK (HCPC – HAD) -- -- -- -- 7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 100
New Zealand (SLT) -- -- -- -- 8 8.5 -- -- -- -- --
UK (HCPC – SLT) -- -- -- -- 8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 118
UK - MNP -- -- -- -- 7 7 7 7 7 -- -- -- -- --
CSHHPBC 8 100 26 26
ACSLP 8 100 26 26
SASLPA 8 -- -- -- -- --
CASLMP 100 26 26
CASLPO 8 100 26 26
NBASLPA -- -- -- -- --
NLCHP 7.5 7.5 92 24 20 20 20
The scan of language proficiency standards and test usage across the environment provides a starting
point to harmonize existing practices and identifies what other organizations are doing successfully. The
scan demonstrates that IELTS scores typically accepted by regulators were in the 6.5 to 8.5 range, and
that there are differences across the skill levels, with some regulators requiring a higher score for certain
language skills, such as speaking and listening.
Also of note is the CLB benchmarking analysis for several Canadian health professions, and the
corresponding IELTS and TOEFL scores which serve as a reference for this work.
1 https://www.ielts.org/ 2 https://www.ets.org/toefl
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
4
As documented in Table 2, a review of applications by international applicants to CAASPR member
organizations from 2012 to 2016 shows the vast majority of applicants are from countries where English
or French are the main language (United States, Belgium, Australia, United Kingdom). Also of note is the
number of applicants from countries that have multiple official languages, including English (India,
Ireland, Philippines). This indicates the need to clearly articulate exemptions to the language proficiency
testing in the policy.
Table 2: International Applicants 2012-2016
Source Country Total Source Country Total
US 111 Sweden 1
Belgium 24 Switzerland 1
Australia 12 Togo 1
UK 9 Algeria 1
India 9 Armenia 1
Ireland 5 Egypt 1
France 3 Iran 1
Philippines 3 Japan 1
South Africa 2 Jordan 1
Unknown 2 Lebanon 1
Brazil 2 Peru 1
N. Zealand 2 Romania 1
2. Language Benchmarks for the Professions
In 2013 a language benchmarking study was conducted by the Centre for Canadian Language
Benchmarks (CCLB) under contract with CAASPR. The study, Benchmarking the Language Demands of
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, described the type, scope, and composition of language use
in the audiology and speech-language pathology workplaces. The study generated a comprehensive list
of language tasks that audiologists and speech language pathologists perform as part of their jobs, and
assigned language benchmarks for both professions in English and French.
The CCLB report concluded that audiologists and speech-language pathologists carry out language tasks
at a range of levels that are almost identical for both professions, and across the two official languages.
Data analysis determined that Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) or niveaux de compétence
linguistique canadiens (NCLC) 9 for all language skill areas (Speaking, Listening, Reading, and Writing)
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
5
appropriately reflect the language tasks associated with the typical job tasks for full working capacity in
both English and French for audiologists and speech language pathologists.
This study provides a solid foundation for establishing language proficiency standards as it offers a clear
statement of the language levels required for practice. A defensible language proficiency standard is one
that has a clear link to authentic and demonstrable language use in the workplace so that it is relevant
and defensible. The language benchmarks study offers the language level against which the proficiency
standard can be established.
3. Mapping Test Scores and Proficiency Levels
Language proficiency scales such as the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) are not tests; instead they
describe different levels of Language proficiency as bands, referring to an extensive range of
communicative competencies for each band. Language tests, on the other hand, are designed for
specific purposes, and contain a select set of communicative tasks. Different language tests are based on
different blueprints, use different proficiency scales, and test different constructs. Test score scales are
therefore not equivalent to one another in a straightforward way, and test levels are not equivalent to
proficiency scales unless they have been designed in alignment to them. As illustrated in Table 3, each
scale has a unique set of intervals between levels.
Table 3: Language Proficiency and Test Score Scales
Proficiency Scale Test 1: TOEFL Test 2: IELTS
CLB Levels Score Range Score Range
12 120 9
11 110 8
10 100 7
9 90 6
8 80 5
7 70 4
6 60 3
5 50 2
4 40 1
3 30 1
2 20 0
1 10
A universally accepted equivalency scale for language proficiency tests and scales does not exist. The
reason is two-fold: first, each scale and test is uniquely designed; and second, the score requirements
will differ according to their intended use. For example, the scores required for university admission will
differ from scores required for immigration. It is generally accepted that the test score users (i.e.,
regulatory bodies or universities) should set the required score through a standard setting process or
through expert opinion that links the test score to the target language use. In the case of CAASPR, this
means aligning the language benchmarks required for practice to the results on IELTS and TOEFL.
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
6
The CCLB study identified scores for each of the four language skills: Speaking, Listening, Reading, and
Writing. IELTS and TOEFL have sub-tests for each of these skill areas and, as illustrated in Table 4, TOEFL
and IELTS have different score scales for each of these sub-tests. IELTS has a band score scale of 1 to 9
for Speaking and Writing, whereas TOEFL scores Speaking and Writing on a scale of 1 to 30. The score
scales for Reading and Writing are 1 to 40 for IELTS and 1 to 30 for TOEFL.
Table 4: Language Proficiency and Test Score Scales by Language Skill
Proficiency Scale Test 1: TOEFL Test 2: IELTS
CLB Levels Score Range Score Range
S W L R S W R L S W L R
12 12 12 12 30 30 30 30 9 9 40 40
11 11 11 11 8 8
10 10 10 10 7 7
9 9 9 9 6 6
8 8 8 8 5 5
7 7 7 7 4 4
6 6 6 6 3 3
5 5 5 5 2 2
4 4 4 4 1 1
3 3 3 3 1 1
2 2 2 2 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
S = Speaking W = Writing R = Reading L= Listening
One approach to aligning scores across tests it to conduct a formal standard setting study for each
subskill of each test. In fact, both TOEFL and IELTS have already conducted such studies. We therefore
made reference to existing official research studies when considering how to align the scores across
tests, and then mapped it on to the CLB 9 benchmark levels. Table 5 shows the results of two studies
that can help make the connection between CLB 9, IELTS, and TOEFL.
The first study is an Educational Test Services (ETS) research report, Linking TOEFL iBT ™ Scores to IELTS®
Scores3. The study analysed a sample of 1,153 students who had both IELTS and TOEFL scores and
applied an equipercentile linking technique to identify the corresponding TOEFL score for each IELTS
score. The equivalent scores are indicated by the two-headed arrow to the right in Table 5. The scores
in green highlight for Test 1: TOEFL and TEST 2: IELTS AC. The study identified that the TOEFL scores
equivalent to IELTS AC 8 in each skill area are: Speaking 28, Writing 30, Reading 29, and Listening 28.
From this study one can see that the scores of IELTS 8 results in a very high score overall, representing
the scores of 28 or higher out of a 30 point scale on TOEFL.
The second resource consulted was the official language test equivalency charts from Citizenship and
Immigration Canada (CIC, now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC)4 which describe the
equivalencies between the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLBs) (for English), the Niveaux de
compétence linguistique canadiens (for French), and the results of designated language tests, including
3 ETS (2010) Linking TOEFL iBTTM Scores to IELTS® Scores – A Research Report. Princeton, N.J.: ETS 4 Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/language/charts.asp on May 4, 2017
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
7
IELTS GT. The two headed arrow to the left in Table 5 indicates the equivalency of CLB 9 and IELTS GT
according to the Government of Canada official equivalency tables.
Table 5: Official Equivalencies established by Two Studies
The results shown above in Table 5 were then considered in reference to the levels of proficiency as
reported by the test administrators. Table 6 illustrates the score ranges for advanced (green)
intermediate (orange) and basic (red). Notice that CLB 9 is a beginner advanced level.
Table 6: Levels of Proficiency per skill area as reported by administrator
Proficiency Scale Test 2: IELTS GT Test 2: IELTS AC
Test 1: TOEFL
CLB Levels Score Range Score Range
Score Range
S W L R S W L R S W L R
S W R L
12 12 12 12
11 11 11 11 9 9 40 40 9 9 40 40
30 30 30 30
10 10 10 10 8 8 35 35 8 8 35 35
28 29 28
9 9 9 9 7 7 30 30 7 7 30 34
26
8 8 8 8 6 6 23 23 6 6 23 30
25 24
7 7 7 7 5 5 16 16 5 5 16 23
23
6 6 6 6 4 4
4 4
15
22 22
5 5 5 5 3 3
3 3
18
4 4 4 4 2 2
2 2
17
3 3 3 3 1 1
1 1
14 14
2 2 2 2 1 1
1 1
10
1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
Advanced Intermediate Basic
The official data available requires some informed assumptions. The first is that IELTS GT and IELTS AC
scores are equivalent. The second is that the levels of proficiency per skill area as reported by
administrators are reliable indicators of advanced, intermediate, and basic proficiency.
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
8
Conclusions
IELTS and TOEFL are accepted by regulators in English speaking environments, as is the Test d’évaluation
du français (TEF) in French speaking environments. All of these exams are accessible internationally and
have strong reliability characteristics. In Quebec, the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) sets
the language standard for that province, therefore this is also an acceptable test.
There is not a clear equivalency statement for CLB to TOEFL. Based on the data available and the
expertise of the language proficiency consultant, recommendations were made as outlined in Table 7.
This recommendation adjusts some of the research findings as follows:
IELTS 7.5 is the most commonly accepted cut scores for regulators of like professions. This
“reality data” supports the 7.5 recommendation. Although IELTS 7 is identified as equivalent to
CLB 9 in the CLB – IELTS CIC equivalency chart, the descriptors for CLB 7.5 more closely reflect
the language demands described in the CCLB report, Benchmarking the Language Demands of
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.
TOEFL scores were maintained at the beginning advanced level for each subskill.
Table 7: Consultant Recommended Scores
Proficiency Scale Test 2: IELTS AC Test 2: IELTS GT
Test 1: TOEFL
CLB Levels Score Range Score Range
Score Range
S W L R S W L R S W L R
S W R L
12 12 12 12
11 11 11 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
30 30 30 30
10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
28 29 28
9 9 9 9 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
26 26
8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
25 24
7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
23
6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
22 22
5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
18
4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
17
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
14 14
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
For French, the alignment of NCLC 9 is made based on an existing official equivalency chart entitled
Intervalles des scores correspondant aux principaux Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens
(NCLC) et niveaux du Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues (CECR) pour chaque épreuve
du Test d’évaluation de français pour le Canada (TEF Canada)5.
5 Retrieved from https://www.centredelanguefrancaise.paris/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Correspondance-Niveaux-NCLC-scores-TEF-CANADA.pdf on May 4, 2017
Backgrounder for 2017 CAASPR Language Proficiency Standard
9
Following the presentation of this data and discussion with the CAASPR Board, adjustments were made
to reflect the following:
The higher listening IELTS score alignment with CLB 9 as per the CIC equivalency scale should be
taken into consideration and the listening score adjusted to IELTS 8.
Overall scores for TOEFL and IELTS should be deleted.
Table 8 shows the recommended cut scores to be used for CAASPR’s language proficiency standard.
Table 8: Scores Approved for CAASPR’s Language Proficiency Standard
Language English French
Test TOEFL inter-net
based test (iBT)
IELTS
(AC or GT)
Test d’évaluation du français (TEF)
or TEF Canada
Office québécois de la
langue française (OQLF)
Required
minimum
score(s)
Speaking: 26
Listening: 26
Reading: 22
Writing: 24
Speaking: 7.5
Listening: 8
Reading: 7.5
Writing: 7.5
Level 5
Expression orale (speaking): 371
Compréhension orale (listening): 298
Compréhension écrite (reading): 248
Expression écrite (writing): 371
Passing mark set by the
OQLF & reviewed by the
OOAQ
10
References
Centre de langue française de la CCI Paris Île-de-France Test d’évaluation de français (TEF) Canada
Retrieved from www.centredelanguefrancaise.paris/tests-diplomes/test-evaluation-francais-
tef/tef-canada/ on May 4, 2017
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (December 2013) Benchmarking the Language Demands of
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology. Report Prepared for the Canadian Alliance of
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Regulators (CAASPR)
Educational Testing Services (ETS) (2010) ETS Linking TOEFL iBT ™ Scores to IELTS® Scores – A Research
Report. Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/linking_toefl_ibt_scores_to_ielts_scores.pdf.
Government of Canada. Language test equivalency charts. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/language/charts.asp on May 4, 2017
TOEFL iBT® and IELTS® Academic Module Scores Score Comparison Tool Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/toefl/institutions/scores/compare/