双语经验的测量需要有多详细?使用Q-BEx问卷进行成本效益分析

IF 2.6 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Cécile De Cat, Arief Gusnanto, Draško Kašćelan, Philippe Prévost, Ludovica Serratrice, Laurie Tuller, Sharon Unsworth
{"title":"双语经验的测量需要有多详细?使用Q-BEx问卷进行成本效益分析","authors":"Cécile De Cat, Arief Gusnanto, Draško Kašćelan, Philippe Prévost, Ludovica Serratrice, Laurie Tuller, Sharon Unsworth","doi":"10.1017/s1366728925100497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>What is the optimal level of questionnaire detail required to measure bilingual language experience? This empirical evaluation compares alternative measures of language exposure of varying cost (i.e., questionnaire detail) in terms of their performance as predictors of oral language outcomes. The alternative measures were derived from Q-BEx questionnaire data collected from a diverse sample of 121 heritage bilinguals (5–9 years of age) growing up in France, the Netherlands and the UK. Outcome data consisted of morphosyntax and vocabulary measures (in the societal language) and parental estimates of oral proficiency (in the heritage language). Statistical modelling exploited information-theoretic and cross-validation approaches to identify the optimal language exposure measure. Optimal cost–benefit was achieved with cumulative exposure (for the societal language) and current exposure in the home (for the heritage language). The greatest level of questionnaire detail did not yield more reliable predictors of language outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8758,"journal":{"name":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How detailed do measures of bilingual language experience need to be? A cost–benefit analysis using the Q-BEx questionnaire\",\"authors\":\"Cécile De Cat, Arief Gusnanto, Draško Kašćelan, Philippe Prévost, Ludovica Serratrice, Laurie Tuller, Sharon Unsworth\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1366728925100497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>What is the optimal level of questionnaire detail required to measure bilingual language experience? This empirical evaluation compares alternative measures of language exposure of varying cost (i.e., questionnaire detail) in terms of their performance as predictors of oral language outcomes. The alternative measures were derived from Q-BEx questionnaire data collected from a diverse sample of 121 heritage bilinguals (5–9 years of age) growing up in France, the Netherlands and the UK. Outcome data consisted of morphosyntax and vocabulary measures (in the societal language) and parental estimates of oral proficiency (in the heritage language). Statistical modelling exploited information-theoretic and cross-validation approaches to identify the optimal language exposure measure. Optimal cost–benefit was achieved with cumulative exposure (for the societal language) and current exposure in the home (for the heritage language). The greatest level of questionnaire detail did not yield more reliable predictors of language outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"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/s1366728925100497\",\"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/s1366728925100497","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

测量双语语言体验所需的问卷细节的最佳水平是多少?这一实证评估比较了不同成本(即问卷细节)的语言暴露的替代措施作为口头语言结果预测因素的表现。另一种测量方法来自Q-BEx问卷数据,这些数据来自121名在法国、荷兰和英国长大的传统双语者(5-9岁)的不同样本。结果数据包括(社会语言)的词法和词汇测量以及父母对口语熟练程度的估计(传统语言)。统计模型利用信息理论和交叉验证方法来确定最佳的语言暴露测量。通过累积接触(对于社会语言)和当前在家中接触(对于传统语言),获得了最佳的成本效益。最大程度的问卷细节并没有产生更可靠的语言结果预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How detailed do measures of bilingual language experience need to be? A cost–benefit analysis using the Q-BEx questionnaire

What is the optimal level of questionnaire detail required to measure bilingual language experience? This empirical evaluation compares alternative measures of language exposure of varying cost (i.e., questionnaire detail) in terms of their performance as predictors of oral language outcomes. The alternative measures were derived from Q-BEx questionnaire data collected from a diverse sample of 121 heritage bilinguals (5–9 years of age) growing up in France, the Netherlands and the UK. Outcome data consisted of morphosyntax and vocabulary measures (in the societal language) and parental estimates of oral proficiency (in the heritage language). Statistical modelling exploited information-theoretic and cross-validation approaches to identify the optimal language exposure measure. Optimal cost–benefit was achieved with cumulative exposure (for the societal language) and current exposure in the home (for the heritage language). The greatest level of questionnaire detail did not yield more reliable predictors of language outcomes.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信