Scoring Yes–No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches

Pellicer‐Sánchez, Ana; Schmitt, Norbert

doi:10.1177/0265532212438053

Cited by 105 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of influential tests currently exist for vocabulary size measurement in English: the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Nation, 1990;Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001), the Vocabulary Size Test (VST) (Nation & Beglar, 2007), the CATSS (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004), and checklist (also known as the Yes/No test) tests (Meara & Buxton, 1987;Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012).…”

Section: Multiple-choice Formats and Guessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats

Gyllstad¹,

Vilkaitė

Schmitt³

2015

ITL

Self Cite

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most tests of vocabulary size, knowledge is assessed through multiple-choice formats. Despite advantages such as ease of scoring, multiple-choice tests (MCT) are accompanied with problems. One of the more central issues has to do with guessing and the presence of other construct-irrelevant strategies that can lead to overestimation of scores. A further challenge when designing vocabulary size tests is that of sampling rate. How many words constitute a representative sample of the underlying population of words that the test is intended to measure? This paper addresses these two issues through a case study based on data from a recent and increasingly used MCT of vocabulary size: theVocabulary Size Test. Using a criterion-related validity approach, our results show that for multiple-choice items sampled from this test, there is a discrepancy between the test scores and the scores obtained from the criterion measure, and that a higher sampling rate would be needed in order to better represent knowledge of the underlying population of words. We offer two main interpretations of these results, and discuss their implications for the construction and use of vocabulary size tests.

show abstract

Section: Multiple-choice Formats and Guessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats

Gyllstad¹,

Vilkaitė

Schmitt³

2015

ITL

Self Cite

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When it comes to scoring the Yes/No format, there are different ways to take into account test-takers' responses to the pseudowords (e.g., Beeckmans, Eyckmans, Janssens, Dufranne, & Van de Velde, 2001;Huibregtse et al, 2002;Mochida & Harrington, 2006;Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012). So far, no clear advantage of any one method has been reported.…”

Section: Yes/no Test: Construct and Use As Placement Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing C-tests and Yes/No vocabulary size tests as predictors of receptive language skills

Harsch

Hartig

2016

Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Placement and screening tests serve important functions, not only with regard to placing learners at appropriate levels of language courses but also with a view to maximizing the effectiveness of administering test batteries. We examined two widely reported formats suitable for these purposes, the discrete decontextualized Yes/No vocabulary test and the embedded contextualized C-test format, in order to determine which format can explain more variance in measures of listening and reading comprehension. Our data stem from a large-scale assessment with over 3000 students in the German secondary educational context; the four measures relevant to our study were administered to a subsample of 559 students. Using regression analysis on observed scores and SEM on a latent level, we found that the C-test outperforms the Yes/No format in both methodological approaches. The contextualized nature of the C-test seems to be able to explain large amounts of variance in measures of receptive language skills. The C-test, being a reliable, economical and robust measure, appears to be an ideal candidate for placement and screening purposes. In a side-line of our study, we also explored different scoring approaches for the Yes–No format. We found that using the hit rate and the false-alarm rate as two separate indicators yielded the most reliable results. These indicators can be interpreted as measures for vocabulary breadth and as guessing factors respectively, and they allow controlling for guessing.

show abstract

“…The simplest way to apply a penalty is to subtract the number of false alarms (the number of pseudo-words that the testee claims to know) from the number of real words claimed to be known (Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012). This can be represented as (1), where P(h) represents the probability that the testee knows the word.…”

Section: Yes / No Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acquisition of Classical Origin Words by Chinese, French, and Finnish Learners

Smith¹,

Keng²

2014

LEiA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This comparative study evaluates the vocabulary knowledge of comparable groups of English learners from three L1 backgrounds: French, Finnish, and Mandarin Chinese. An investigation of differences in vocabulary knowledge revealed that vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin is much more likely to be known by French speaking students than words of non Graeco-Latin origin. Finnish students did much better on words of non Graeco-Latin origin, although they still outperformed the French speakers on Graeco-Latin words. The performance of the native Chinese speakers was the worst of the three groups, and there was no significant difference with this group between the two sets of words. The findings have clear implications for the teaching of academic English vocabulary in EAP settings where students share an L1. In mixed L1 settings, instructors may need to take account of variation in vocabulary knowledge among different L1 student groups.As is widely known, a large proportion of English vocabulary is of Graeco-Latin (GL) origin. Most native English speakers would agree that frequent use of GL words could be an indication of a greater vocabulary and indeed of a higher level of education. Corson (1982Corson ( , 1985, posited the existence of a lexical bar in English, whereby members of certain social classes, who do not acquire the L1 vocabulary necessary to express more abstract technical and academic thought, are denied full access to the curriculum as they go through the school system. In English, a high proportion of scientific and technical terms take the form of GL words. GL words are more difficult to acquire inasmuch as specialist vocabulary tends to represent more difficult concepts.Whilst social class, prosperity, and a range of other environmental factors may influence the degree to which Asian learners acquire English, it is of course extremely unlikely that such factors have any impact on the type of vocabulary learned. However, the lack of GL cognates in a given language will probably place its native speakers at a disadvantage when learning English vocabulary. It can plausibly be argued that a lexical bar similar to Corson's exists for certain EFL learners; the height of this bar would be in inverse proportion to the density of GL

show abstract

Scoring Yes–No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches

Cited by 105 publications

References 14 publications

Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats

Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats

Comparing C-tests and Yes/No vocabulary size tests as predictors of receptive language skills

The Acquisition of Classical Origin Words by Chinese, French, and Finnish Learners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About