Revisiting the validity of the vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire using the confirmatory composite analysis (CCA): Setting new directions for the field

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal of Applied Linguistics Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1111/ijal.12609
Abdullah Alamer, Suhad Sonbul, Dina Abdel Salam El‐Dakhs
{"title":"Revisiting the validity of the vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire using the confirmatory composite analysis (CCA): Setting new directions for the field","authors":"Abdullah Alamer, Suhad Sonbul, Dina Abdel Salam El‐Dakhs","doi":"10.1111/ijal.12609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) are one of the key variables that allow researchers to understand learners’ success in second language (L2) learning. Different questionnaires are available to examine L2 learners' use of VLSs, but most of them suffered from problems while gathering sufficient statistical evidence. The present study sought to replicate the construct validity of the VLS questionnaire from a different statistical perspective. Particularly, we conceive of the nine constructs of VLSs as <jats:italic>emergent variables</jats:italic> (composite) rather than <jats:italic>latent variables</jats:italic> (common factor). In contrast to latent variables, emergent variables are constructs that are formed by their items. To test this proposition, we make use of the confirmatory composite analysis (CCA), which is akin to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), that was developed for assessing emergent variables. To evaluate the CCA model of VLSs, 216 Saudi university students of English completed an online questionnaire. The results indicated that CCA better fitted our data while CFA appeared to provide a less than acceptable fit. Moreover, we examined the criterion‐related validity of the VLSs through the composite model and showed that two constructs, <jats:italic>inferencing</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>self‐initiation</jats:italic> positively related to self‐perception of English proficiency. Overall, the findings seem to suggest that the VLSs are better seen as made of emergent variables, with the items defining the constructs. The findings hold methodological and empirical implications for the L2 research.","PeriodicalId":46851,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12609","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) are one of the key variables that allow researchers to understand learners’ success in second language (L2) learning. Different questionnaires are available to examine L2 learners' use of VLSs, but most of them suffered from problems while gathering sufficient statistical evidence. The present study sought to replicate the construct validity of the VLS questionnaire from a different statistical perspective. Particularly, we conceive of the nine constructs of VLSs as emergent variables (composite) rather than latent variables (common factor). In contrast to latent variables, emergent variables are constructs that are formed by their items. To test this proposition, we make use of the confirmatory composite analysis (CCA), which is akin to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), that was developed for assessing emergent variables. To evaluate the CCA model of VLSs, 216 Saudi university students of English completed an online questionnaire. The results indicated that CCA better fitted our data while CFA appeared to provide a less than acceptable fit. Moreover, we examined the criterion‐related validity of the VLSs through the composite model and showed that two constructs, inferencing and self‐initiation positively related to self‐perception of English proficiency. Overall, the findings seem to suggest that the VLSs are better seen as made of emergent variables, with the items defining the constructs. The findings hold methodological and empirical implications for the L2 research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用证实性综合分析(CCA)重新审视词汇学习策略问卷的有效性:为该领域指明新方向
词汇学习策略(VLS)是研究人员了解学习者在第二语言(L2)学习中取得成功的关键变量之一。目前有不同的调查问卷来考察第二语言学习者对词汇学习策略的使用情况,但大多数问卷在收集足够的统计证据时都存在问题。本研究试图从不同的统计角度复制 VLS 问卷的建构效度。特别是,我们将 VLS 的九个构式视为涌现变量(复合变量)而非潜变量(共同因素)。与潜变量相比,涌现变量是由其项目形成的构念。为了验证这一命题,我们使用了确证综合分析(CCA),它类似于确证因子分析(CFA),是为评估涌现变量而开发的。为了评估 VLS 的 CCA 模型,216 名学习英语的沙特大学生填写了一份在线问卷。结果表明,CCA 更好地拟合了我们的数据,而 CFA 的拟合效果似乎不尽如人意。此外,我们还通过复合模型检验了 VLS 的标准相关效度,结果表明推断和自我激励这两个构念与英语能力的自我认知正相关。总之,研究结果似乎表明,VLS 最好被视为由新兴变量组成,由项目来定义建构。这些发现对语言学习研究具有方法论和实证方面的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Applied Linguistics (InJAL) publishes articles that explore the relationship between expertise in linguistics, broadly defined, and the everyday experience of language. Its scope is international in that it welcomes articles which show explicitly how local issues of language use or learning exemplify more global concerns.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The big global issues: Applied linguists and transdisciplinarity beyond SLA Influential sociocultural factors on teacher agency in times of educational change: Reflection from a Southeast Asian context Social presence and other individual differences in asynchronous English communication Unveiling the complexity of L2 learners’ emotions and emotion regulation: A retrodictive qualitative modeling study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1