Establishing meaning recall and meaning recognition vocabulary knowledge as distinct psychometric constructs in relation to reading proficiency

IF 2.2 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Testing Pub Date : 2023-04-24 DOI:10.1177/02655322231162853
J. Stewart, Henrik Gyllstad, Christopher Nicklin, Stuart Mclean
{"title":"Establishing meaning recall and meaning recognition vocabulary knowledge as distinct psychometric constructs in relation to reading proficiency","authors":"J. Stewart, Henrik Gyllstad, Christopher Nicklin, Stuart Mclean","doi":"10.1177/02655322231162853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to (a) establish whether meaning recall and meaning recognition item formats test psychometrically distinct constructs of vocabulary knowledge which measure separate skills, and, if so, (b) determine whether each construct possesses unique properties predictive of L2 reading proficiency. Factor analyses and hierarchical regression were conducted on results derived from the two vocabulary item formats in order to test this hypothesis. The results indicated that although the two-factor model had better fit and meaning recall and meaning recognition can be considered distinct psychometrically, discriminant validity between the two factors is questionable. In hierarchical regression models, meaning recognition knowledge did not make a statistically significant contribution to explaining reading proficiency over meaning recall knowledge. However, when the roles were reversed, meaning recall did make a significant contribution to the model beyond the variance explained by meaning recognition alone. The results suggest that meaning recognition does not tap into unique aspects of vocabulary knowledge and provide empirical support for meaning recall as a superior predictor of reading proficiency for research purposes.","PeriodicalId":17928,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231162853","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to (a) establish whether meaning recall and meaning recognition item formats test psychometrically distinct constructs of vocabulary knowledge which measure separate skills, and, if so, (b) determine whether each construct possesses unique properties predictive of L2 reading proficiency. Factor analyses and hierarchical regression were conducted on results derived from the two vocabulary item formats in order to test this hypothesis. The results indicated that although the two-factor model had better fit and meaning recall and meaning recognition can be considered distinct psychometrically, discriminant validity between the two factors is questionable. In hierarchical regression models, meaning recognition knowledge did not make a statistically significant contribution to explaining reading proficiency over meaning recall knowledge. However, when the roles were reversed, meaning recall did make a significant contribution to the model beyond the variance explained by meaning recognition alone. The results suggest that meaning recognition does not tap into unique aspects of vocabulary knowledge and provide empirical support for meaning recall as a superior predictor of reading proficiency for research purposes.
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
将意义回忆和意义识别词汇知识建立为与阅读能力相关的不同心理测量结构
本文的目的是(a)确定意义回忆和意义识别项目格式是否测试衡量不同技能的词汇知识的心理上不同的结构,如果是,(b)确定每个结构是否具有预测二语阅读水平的独特特性。为了验证这一假设,对两种词汇项目格式的结果进行了因子分析和层次回归。结果表明,尽管双因素模型具有更好的拟合性,并且在心理测量学上可以认为意义回忆和意义识别是不同的,但这两个因素之间的判别有效性值得怀疑。在层次回归模型中,与意义回忆知识相比,意义识别知识在解释阅读能力方面没有统计学上的显著贡献。然而,当角色颠倒时,意义回忆确实对模型做出了重大贡献,而不仅仅是意义识别所解释的方差。研究结果表明,意义识别并没有利用词汇知识的独特方面,并为意义回忆作为研究目的的阅读能力的高级预测因子提供了实证支持。
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
Language Testing
Language Testing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Language Testing is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language testing and assessment. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information between people working in the fields of first and second language testing and assessment. This includes researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing, and assessment in child language acquisition and language pathology. In addition, special attention is focused on issues of testing theory, experimental investigations, and the following up of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Can language test providers do more to support open science? A response to Winke Considerations to promote and accelerate Open Science: A response to Winke Evaluating the impact of nonverbal behavior on language ability ratings Sharing, collaborating, and building trust: How Open Science advances language testing Open Science in language assessment research contexts: A reply to Winke
×
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