Vocabulary’s relationship to reading proficiency is frequently cited as a justification for the assessment of L2 written receptive vocabulary knowledge. However, to date, there has been relatively little research regarding which modalities of vocabulary knowledge have the strongest correlations to reading proficiency, and observed differences have often been statistically non-significant. The present research employs a bootstrapping approach to reach a clearer understanding of relationships between various modalities of vocabulary knowledge to reading proficiency. Test-takers ( N = 103) answered 1000 vocabulary test items spanning the third 1000 most frequent English words in the New General Service List corpus (Browne, Culligan, & Phillips, 2013). Items were answered under four modalities: Yes/No checklists, form recall, meaning recall, and meaning recognition. These pools of test items were then sampled with replacement to create 1000 simulated tests ranging in length from five to 200 items and the results were correlated to the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC®) Reading scores. For all examined test lengths, meaning-recall vocabulary tests had the highest average correlations to reading proficiency, followed by form-recall vocabulary tests. The results indicated that tests of vocabulary recall are stronger predictors of reading proficiency than tests of vocabulary recognition, despite the theoretically closer relationship of vocabulary recognition to reading.

The rise in the affordability of quality video production equipment has resulted in increased interest in video-mediated tests of foreign language listening comprehension. Although research on such tests has continued fairly steadily since the early 1980s, studies have relied on analyses of raw scores, despite the growing prevalence of item response theory in the field of language testing as a whole. The present study addresses this gap by comparing data from identical, counter-balanced multiple-choice listening test forms employing three text types (monologue, conversation, and lecture) administered to 164 university students of English in Japan. Data were analyzed via many-facet Rasch modeling to compare the difficulties of the audio and video formats; to investigate interactions between format and text-type, and format and proficiency level; and to identify specific items biased toward one or the other format. Finally, items displaying such differences were subjected to differential distractor functioning analyses. No interactions between format and text-type, or format and proficiency level, were observed. Four items were discovered displaying format-based differences in difficulty, two of which were found to correspond to possible acting anomalies in the videos. The author argues for further work focusing on item-level interactions with test format.

No abstract

Second language vocabulary acquisition has been modeled both as multidimensional in nature and as a continuum wherein the learner's knowledge of a word develops along a cline from recognition through production. In order to empirically examine and compare these models, the authors assess the degree to which the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS; Paribakht & Wesche, 1993), which implicitly assumes a cline model of acquisition, conforms to a linear trait model under the Rasch Partial Credit Model, and determine the dimensionality of the individual tasks contained on the scale (selfreport, first language [L1] equivalent, and sentence) using DETECT. The authors find that, although the VKS functions adequately overall as a measurement model, Stages 3 (can give an adequate L1 equivalent) and 4 (can use with semantic appropriateness) are psychometrically indistinct, suggesting they should be collapsed into a single category of definitional knowledge. Analysis under DIMTEST and DETECT indicates that other forms of vocabulary knowledge measured by the VKS are weakly multidimensional, which has implications for continuum models of vocabulary acquisition.1. The word is not familiar at all. 2. The word is familiar but its meaning is not known. 3. A correct synonym or translation is given. 4. The word is used with semantic appropriateness in a sentence.