How do Italian proficiency tests compare to CEFR standards

Italian proficiency tests are commonly designed to align with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which is a widely recognized standard for measuring language proficiency across different languages in Europe. The CEFR framework categorizes proficiency into six levels: A1, A2 (basic user), B1, B2 (independent user), and C1, C2 (proficient user), and Italian language tests often map their levels to these CEFR categories to provide standardized assessment.

Several academic and standardized Italian language exams, such as the CILS (Certificato di Italiano come Lingua Straniera) and CELI (Certificato di Conoscenza della Lingua Italiana), explicitly reference CEFR levels to indicate the proficiency a candidate achieves. These tests evaluate skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking and correspond to specific CEFR levels to facilitate understanding and acceptance internationally, especially for education and immigration purposes.

Research on Italian proficiency assessment confirms that test assignments and responses are evaluated with reference to CEFR criteria, ensuring consistency in what different CEFR levels represent linguistically and communicatively for learners of Italian as a second language. Automated proficiency scoring systems for Italian also adopt CEFR as the underlying scale for model training and evaluation, reflecting its role as the standard framework. ^{1, 2, 3}

In summary, Italian proficiency tests are designed to closely match CEFR standards by:

• Assigning proficiency levels that correspond to CEFR categories (A1 to C2).
• Structuring test components to assess the four language skills in ways that reflect CEFR level descriptors.
• Using CEFR as a benchmark to ensure comparability and recognition of Italian language proficiency internationally.

This alignment helps learners, educators, and institutions have clear, consistent expectations of language ability when using Italian proficiency test results. ^{2, 3, 1}

References

• RITA: A Phraseological Dataset of CEFR Assignments and Exams for Italian as a Second Language

• REPROLANG 2020: Automatic Proficiency Scoring of Czech, English, German, Italian, and Spanish Learner Essays

• Experiments with Universal CEFR Classification

• Text Classification for Italian Proficiency Evaluation

• Proficiency tests on olive oil organized by the Italian National Reference Laboratory for pesticides: long-term performance of laboratories

• for Italian Proficiency

• The L2 proficiency level effect in L3 lexical learning: high-proficiency L2s do not transfer

• Linking Tests of English for Academic Purposes to the CEFR: The Score User’s Perspective

• A speaking comparison of text analysis tools:Levels of agreement and disagreement

• Comparison of Same Versus Different Projection Implants in Asymmetric Tuberous Breasts: Long-Term Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Analysis.

• Comparison of immunoassay screening tests and LC-MS-MS for urine detection of benzodiazepines and their metabolites: results of a national proficiency test.

• L2 Learners’ Proficiency Evaluation on CEFR Criteria using Recognition-Taguchi Method

• Examiner Quality and Consistency across LanguageCert Writing Tests

• Evalita-LLM: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Italian

• Disce aut Deficere: Evaluating LLMs Proficiency on the INVALSI Italian Benchmark

• Critical Evaluation of the ‘Matura’ Test: CEFR Alignment Project for the Austrian National Examination in English (B2 Level)

• Experiments with Universal CEFR Classification

• The Invalsi Benchmarks: measuring Linguistic and Mathematical understanding of Large Language Models in Italian