二语口语任务反应中词汇多样性指数的信度和效度证据评估

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
K. Kyle, Hakyung Sung, Masaki Eguchi, F. Zenker
{"title":"二语口语任务反应中词汇多样性指数的信度和效度证据评估","authors":"K. Kyle, Hakyung Sung, Masaki Eguchi, F. Zenker","doi":"10.1017/s0272263123000402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Although lexical diversity is often used as a measure of productive proficiency (e.g., as an aspect of lexical complexity) in SLA studies involving oral tasks, relatively little research has been conducted to support the reliability and/or validity of these indices in spoken contexts. Furthermore, SLA researchers commonly use indices of lexical diversity such as Root TTR (Guiraud’s index) and D (vocd-D and HD-D) that have been preliminarily shown to lack reliability in spoken L2 contexts and/or have been consistently shown to lack reliability in written L2 contexts. In this study, we empirically evaluate lexical diversity indices with respect to two aspects of reliability (text-length independence and across-task stability) and one aspect of validity (relationship with proficiency scores). The results indicated that neither Root TTR nor D is reliable across different text lengths. However, support for the reliability and validity of optimized versions of MATTR and MTLD was found.","PeriodicalId":22008,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating evidence for the reliability and validity of lexical diversity indices in L2 oral task responses\",\"authors\":\"K. Kyle, Hakyung Sung, Masaki Eguchi, F. Zenker\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0272263123000402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Although lexical diversity is often used as a measure of productive proficiency (e.g., as an aspect of lexical complexity) in SLA studies involving oral tasks, relatively little research has been conducted to support the reliability and/or validity of these indices in spoken contexts. Furthermore, SLA researchers commonly use indices of lexical diversity such as Root TTR (Guiraud’s index) and D (vocd-D and HD-D) that have been preliminarily shown to lack reliability in spoken L2 contexts and/or have been consistently shown to lack reliability in written L2 contexts. In this study, we empirically evaluate lexical diversity indices with respect to two aspects of reliability (text-length independence and across-task stability) and one aspect of validity (relationship with proficiency scores). The results indicated that neither Root TTR nor D is reliable across different text lengths. However, support for the reliability and validity of optimized versions of MATTR and MTLD was found.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Second Language Acquisition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Second Language Acquisition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263123000402\",\"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":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263123000402","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: 1

摘要

虽然词汇多样性在涉及口语任务的二语习得研究中经常被用作生产熟练程度的衡量标准(例如,作为词汇复杂性的一个方面),但相对而言,很少有研究支持这些指标在口语语境中的可靠性和/或有效性。此外,二语习得研究者通常使用词根TTR (Guiraud 's index)和D (vocd-D和HD-D)等词汇多样性指标,这些指标在二语口语语境中初步被证明缺乏可靠性,或在二语书面语境中一直被证明缺乏可靠性。在本研究中,我们从信度(文本长度独立性和跨任务稳定性)和效度(与熟练度分数的关系)两个方面对词汇多样性指数进行了实证评估。结果表明,根TTR和D在不同的文本长度上都不可靠。然而,matr和MTLD优化版本的信度和效度得到了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating evidence for the reliability and validity of lexical diversity indices in L2 oral task responses
Although lexical diversity is often used as a measure of productive proficiency (e.g., as an aspect of lexical complexity) in SLA studies involving oral tasks, relatively little research has been conducted to support the reliability and/or validity of these indices in spoken contexts. Furthermore, SLA researchers commonly use indices of lexical diversity such as Root TTR (Guiraud’s index) and D (vocd-D and HD-D) that have been preliminarily shown to lack reliability in spoken L2 contexts and/or have been consistently shown to lack reliability in written L2 contexts. In this study, we empirically evaluate lexical diversity indices with respect to two aspects of reliability (text-length independence and across-task stability) and one aspect of validity (relationship with proficiency scores). The results indicated that neither Root TTR nor D is reliable across different text lengths. However, support for the reliability and validity of optimized versions of MATTR and MTLD was found.
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
8.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Studies in Second Language Acquisition is a refereed journal of international scope devoted to the scientific discussion of acquisition or use of non-native and heritage languages. Each volume (five issues) contains research articles of either a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods nature in addition to essays on current theoretical matters. Other rubrics include shorter articles such as Replication Studies, Critical Commentaries, and Research Reports.
×
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