Linking scores from two written receptive English academic vocabulary tests—The VLT-Ac and the AVT

Abstract

The academic section of the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT-Ac) and the Academic Vocabulary Test (AVT) both assess meaning-recognition knowledge of written receptive academic vocabulary, deemed central for engagement in academic activities. Depending on the purpose and context of the testing, either of the tests can be appropriate, but for research and pedagogical purposes, it is important to be able to compare scores achieved on the two tests between administrations and within similar contexts. Based on a sample of 385 upper secondary school students in university-preparatory programs (independent CEFR B2-level users of English), this study presents a comparison model by linking the VLT-Ac and the AVT using concurrent calibration procedures in Item Response Theory. The key outcome of the study is a score comparison table providing a means for approximate score comparisons. Additionally, the study showcases a viable and valid method of comparing vocabulary scores from an older test with those from a newer one.

Assessing the Nexus of EFL Learners’ Academic Self-concept and Their Formal English Vocabulary Knowledge

“…Other studies found that both vocabulary knowledge can accurately represent participants' language competency is a stronger indication of such competency (González-Fernández, 2022;Rivera Perez, 2019). It is crucial to define these terms and emphasize their significance when addressing formal or academic vocabulary for English language learners (Cooper, 2000;Crosson et al, 2019;Warnby, 2022aWarnby, , 2022b. Furthermore, in the following table, concerning the creativity aspect in learning vocabulary.…”

Exploring the Effects of Early Extramural English Exposure on the Vocabulary Size of University Students

“…Although the multiple-choice format is potentially vulnerable to guessing or other test-taking strategies, e.g., [51], it can nevertheless be a useful tool in this context since it encourages participants to pick the most likely option based on the resources they have available to them, including partial knowledge or recognition of cognates, which is relevant when investigating vocabulary acquisition through incidental learning. It should be noted that there are limitations inherent in the design of the VST, such as the small sampling rate [52] and the fact that the test is based on word families rather than lemmas, which may give more accurate estimates of vocabulary size [53,54], and therefore, vocabulary size estimates based on this test should be interpreted with caution.…”

“…Although the multiple-choice format is potentially vulnerable to guessing or other test-taking strategies, e.g., [51], it can nevertheless be a useful tool in this context since it encourages participants to pick the most likely option based on the resources they have available to them, including partial knowledge or recognition of cognates, which is relevant when investigating vocabulary acquisition through incidental learning. It should be noted that there are limitations inherent in the design of the VST, such as the small sampling rate [52] and the fact that the test is based on word families rather than lemmas, which may give more accurate estimates of vocabulary size [53,54], and therefore, vocabulary size estimates based on this test should be interpreted with caution. Since previous research [13] found that university students in Norway enrolled in English programs demonstrated a high level of mastery of the most frequently occurring 5000 words in English, only the items from the 5000 level of the VST and up to the maximum of 14,000 words were included in the current study in order to reduce participant fatigue and increase chances of completion of the survey.…”