This study is based on three sources: (1) an experimental try-out of four oral proficiency testing methods (oral interview, role play, reporting test, and group discussion); (2) an evaluation of the testing methods by a panel of experts; and (3) an analysis of the same testing methods by policy makers. The findings are reported in terms of the Joint Committee's "Standards for Evaluation of Educational Programs, Projects and Materials" (Utility, Accuracy, Feasibility, and Fairness), modified to apply to tests. Decision makers were interested in the information regarding the Utility and Feasibility of the various tests, and did not limit their interest to Accuracy. Comparing the results obtained from the experimental try-out study and the rankings provided by the panel of experts suggests that testing experts seem to be better in judging a test by some standards than by others. The findings also suggest that testing experts should not limit themselves to the technical aspects of Accuracy, but instead use the wide scope of all four standards to judge the merit of a test. (BW)