Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the implications of generative AI on the validity of high-stakes English proficiency tests, arguing that traditional assessments may no longer accurately reflect academic communicative readiness as AI-mediated language use evolves. It introduces the concept of AI-mediated construct drift, highlighting the misalignment between test constructs based on unaided performance and the changing communicative demands in AI-influenced contexts. The authors propose a validity-oriented design principle called bounded AI mediation, which standardizes AI assistance across test-takers to ensure fairer and more relevant assessments.
AI-mediated construct drift challenges the validity of traditional language assessments, revealing that score interpretations may no longer hold in AI-influenced communication contexts.
High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.