预测能力

IF 2.5 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Anne Neveu, Dalia L. Garcia, Britney Escobedo, Paulina Enriquez Vazquez, Miguel Mejia, Liv J. Hoversten, Tamar H. Gollan
{"title":"预测能力","authors":"Anne Neveu, Dalia L. Garcia, Britney Escobedo, Paulina Enriquez Vazquez, Miguel Mejia, Liv J. Hoversten, Tamar H. Gollan","doi":"10.1017/s1366728925000367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We investigated which objective language proficiency tests best predict the language dominance, balance, English and Spanish proficiency scores relative to Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) scores (averaged across 5–6 raters). Eighty Spanish–English bilinguals completed OPIs, picture naming, semantic and letter fluency, lexical decision tests and a language history questionnaire. Except for letter fluency, objective measures explained more variance than self-report variables, which seldom and negligibly improved proficiency prediction beyond objective measures in forward regression models. Picture naming (the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) Sprint 2.0) was the strongest predictor for most purposes. Lexical decision and category fluency were next best predictors, but the latter was time-consuming to score, while the former was easiest to administer (and does not require bilingual examiners). Surprisingly, self-rated proficiency better predicted the OPI scores when averaged across modalities (i.e., including reading/writing instead of just spoken proficiency), and lexical-decision (a written test) was as powerful as picture naming for predicting spoken Spanish (but not language dominance).</p>","PeriodicalId":8758,"journal":{"name":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting proficiency\",\"authors\":\"Anne Neveu, Dalia L. Garcia, Britney Escobedo, Paulina Enriquez Vazquez, Miguel Mejia, Liv J. Hoversten, Tamar H. Gollan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1366728925000367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We investigated which objective language proficiency tests best predict the language dominance, balance, English and Spanish proficiency scores relative to Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) scores (averaged across 5–6 raters). Eighty Spanish–English bilinguals completed OPIs, picture naming, semantic and letter fluency, lexical decision tests and a language history questionnaire. Except for letter fluency, objective measures explained more variance than self-report variables, which seldom and negligibly improved proficiency prediction beyond objective measures in forward regression models. Picture naming (the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) Sprint 2.0) was the strongest predictor for most purposes. Lexical decision and category fluency were next best predictors, but the latter was time-consuming to score, while the former was easiest to administer (and does not require bilingual examiners). Surprisingly, self-rated proficiency better predicted the OPI scores when averaged across modalities (i.e., including reading/writing instead of just spoken proficiency), and lexical-decision (a written test) was as powerful as picture naming for predicting spoken Spanish (but not language dominance).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728925000367\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728925000367","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们调查了哪一种客观语言能力测试最能预测语言优势、平衡、英语和西班牙语水平分数相对于口语水平面试(OPI)分数(5-6名评分者的平均值)。80名西班牙-英语双语者完成了OPIs、图片命名、语义和字母流畅性、词汇决策测试和语言历史问卷。除了字母流畅性外,客观测量比自我报告变量解释了更多的方差,这在正向回归模型中很少而且可以忽略不计地提高了超越客观测量的熟练程度预测。在大多数情况下,图片命名(多语言命名测试Sprint 2.0)是最强的预测因子。词汇决策和类别流畅度是第二好的预测指标,但后者需要花费时间来评分,而前者最容易管理(而且不需要双语考官)。令人惊讶的是,当在各种模式(即,包括阅读/写作而不仅仅是口语能力)中取平均值时,自我评估的熟练程度更好地预测了OPI分数,词汇决策(书面测试)在预测西班牙语口语方面与图片命名一样强大(但不是语言优势)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predicting proficiency

We investigated which objective language proficiency tests best predict the language dominance, balance, English and Spanish proficiency scores relative to Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) scores (averaged across 5–6 raters). Eighty Spanish–English bilinguals completed OPIs, picture naming, semantic and letter fluency, lexical decision tests and a language history questionnaire. Except for letter fluency, objective measures explained more variance than self-report variables, which seldom and negligibly improved proficiency prediction beyond objective measures in forward regression models. Picture naming (the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) Sprint 2.0) was the strongest predictor for most purposes. Lexical decision and category fluency were next best predictors, but the latter was time-consuming to score, while the former was easiest to administer (and does not require bilingual examiners). Surprisingly, self-rated proficiency better predicted the OPI scores when averaged across modalities (i.e., including reading/writing instead of just spoken proficiency), and lexical-decision (a written test) was as powerful as picture naming for predicting spoken Spanish (but not language dominance).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
86
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信