Developing the Productive Academic Formulas Test: Evidence from Rasch and factor analysis and cognitive fluency analysis

IF 8 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
System Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-19 DOI:10.1016/j.system.2025.103922
Kotaro Takizawa , Shungo Suzuki
{"title":"Developing the Productive Academic Formulas Test: Evidence from Rasch and factor analysis and cognitive fluency analysis","authors":"Kotaro Takizawa ,&nbsp;Shungo Suzuki","doi":"10.1016/j.system.2025.103922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The aim of this study is to explore the validity of the Productive Academic Formulas Test (PAFT), developed from items in the Academic Formulas List (Simpson-Vlach &amp; Ellis, 2010). A total of 110 Japanese undergraduate students learning English took the PAFT, the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT; Laufer &amp; Nation, 1999), and the Phrasal Vocabulary Size Test (PVST; Martinez, 2011). After calibrating the PAFT items using Rasch dichotomous modeling, the convergent and discriminant validity of the PAFT was examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The four theoretical CFA models were tested: (1) single-factor model (<em>vocabulary knowledge</em>), (2) two-factor model (<em>single vocabulary</em> vs. <em>multiword sequence</em>), (3) two-factor model (<em>receptive vocabulary</em> vs. <em>productive vocabulary</em>), and (4) three-factor model (<em>single vocabulary</em> vs. <em>productive multiword sequence</em> vs. <em>receptive multiword sequence</em>). The predictive power of the PAFT was also examined by predicting L2 utterance fluency measures (speed, breakdown, and repair fluency) elicited from an argumentative speech task. The results indicated that the PAFT demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties (unidimensionality and high reliability) and construct validity as a measure of productive multiword sequence knowledge. Regression analyses with dominance analysis procedure revealed that the PVLT scores contributed most strongly to most of the fluency measures (dominance weight: 34.9 %–59.1 %), followed by the scores of PAFT (20.1 %–30.2 %) and PVST (13.2 %–45.1 %). Implications for vocabulary testing and for the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to fluency are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48185,"journal":{"name":"System","volume":"137 ","pages":"Article 103922"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"System","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X2500332X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the validity of the Productive Academic Formulas Test (PAFT), developed from items in the Academic Formulas List (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010). A total of 110 Japanese undergraduate students learning English took the PAFT, the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT; Laufer & Nation, 1999), and the Phrasal Vocabulary Size Test (PVST; Martinez, 2011). After calibrating the PAFT items using Rasch dichotomous modeling, the convergent and discriminant validity of the PAFT was examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The four theoretical CFA models were tested: (1) single-factor model (vocabulary knowledge), (2) two-factor model (single vocabulary vs. multiword sequence), (3) two-factor model (receptive vocabulary vs. productive vocabulary), and (4) three-factor model (single vocabulary vs. productive multiword sequence vs. receptive multiword sequence). The predictive power of the PAFT was also examined by predicting L2 utterance fluency measures (speed, breakdown, and repair fluency) elicited from an argumentative speech task. The results indicated that the PAFT demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties (unidimensionality and high reliability) and construct validity as a measure of productive multiword sequence knowledge. Regression analyses with dominance analysis procedure revealed that the PVLT scores contributed most strongly to most of the fluency measures (dominance weight: 34.9 %–59.1 %), followed by the scores of PAFT (20.1 %–30.2 %) and PVST (13.2 %–45.1 %). Implications for vocabulary testing and for the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to fluency are discussed.
开发生产性学术公式测试:来自Rasch和因子分析和认知流畅性分析的证据
本研究的目的是探索生产性学术公式测试(PAFT)的有效性,该测试是从学术公式列表中的项目发展而来的(Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010)。共有110名日本大学生参加了PAFT、生产性词汇水平测试(PVLT; Laufer & Nation, 1999)和短语词汇量测试(PVST; Martinez, 2011)。采用Rasch二分类模型对PAFT项目进行校正后,通过验证性因子分析(CFA)检验PAFT的收敛效度和判别效度。对四种CFA理论模型进行了检验:(1)单因素模型(词汇知识),(2)双因素模型(单一词汇vs多词序列),(3)双因素模型(接受性词汇vs生产性词汇),(4)三因素模型(单一词汇vs生产性多词序列vs接受性多词序列)。PAFT的预测能力也通过预测从辩论性言语任务中引出的第二语言流利度测量(速度、中断和修复流利度)来检验。结果表明,PAFT具有良好的心理测量特性(单维性和高信度)和结构效度,可作为生产性多词序列知识的衡量标准。运用优势度分析程序进行回归分析,发现PVLT分数对大部分流利性指标的贡献最大(优势度权重为34.9% ~ 59.1%),其次是PAFT分数(优势度权重为20.1% ~ 30.2%)和PVST分数(优势度权重为13.2% ~ 45.1%)。讨论了词汇测试的意义以及词汇知识对流利性的贡献。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
System
System Multiple-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
64 days
期刊介绍: This international journal is devoted to the applications of educational technology and applied linguistics to problems of foreign language teaching and learning. Attention is paid to all languages and to problems associated with the study and teaching of English as a second or foreign language. The journal serves as a vehicle of expression for colleagues in developing countries. System prefers its contributors to provide articles which have a sound theoretical base with a visible practical application which can be generalized. The review section may take up works of a more theoretical nature to broaden the background.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书