Analyzing individual differences in second language research
The benefits of mixed effects models
Jared A. Linck | University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language
Second language (L2) learners differ on myriad attributes, ranging from cognitive abilities (e.g. auditory perceptual acuity, working memory) to linguistic abilities like L2 proficiency to personality or motivational factors. For decades, scholars have been interested in understanding the impact of these individual differences on L2 outcomes as well as on the learner’s responsiveness to instructional treatments. In contrast to categorical factors like gender, when the attribute of interest varies along a continuum, there are various approaches for analyzing the individual difference variable. Simpler approaches involve reducing the complexity of the analysis by binning or splitting a sample into categorical groups (e.g. by performing a median split) then conducting traditional analyses such as t-tests and ANOVAs. But the concomitant loss of information in the individual difference measure can greatly reduce statistical power, thereby rendering it much more difficult to detect true effects — particularly when the effects are small, as they typically are in L2 research. Moreover, the resulting inferences may no longer map cleanly onto the research questions that originally motivated the research. Mixed effects models — a variant of regression — provide flexibility in the analysis of individual differences that can maintain the observed variability in the data so that scholars can directly test the hypotheses motivating their research. In this chapter, through a series of example models worked out in the R statistical software, I demonstrate the feasibility and ease of using mixed effects models to examine individual differences in L2 research. The examples focus on a scenario requiring the analysis of individual differences while also modeling the main and interactive effects of multiple factors (i.e. experimental design manipulations).
Article outline
1.Introduction
2.Mixed effects models
3.Example dataset: Linck et al.’s (2012) trilingual language switching
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (under review). Parsimonious mixed models. Retrieved from <[URL]> (16 June 2015).
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7. <[URL]>
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gelman, A., & Pardoe, I. (2006). Bayesian measures of explained variance and pooling in multilevel (hierarchical) models. Technometrics, 48, 241–251.
Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.
Johnson, P. C. D. (2014). Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 944–946.
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 185–207. DOI .
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 651–662.
Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012). Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 951–966.
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <[URL]>
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
Usami, S. (2014). A convenient method and numerical tables for sample size determination in longitudinal-experimental research using multilevel models. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1207–1219.
Wurm, L. H., & Fisicaro, S. A. (2014). What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does (and what it does not do). Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 37–48.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Hubbard, Ryan J. & Kara D. Federmeier
2024. The Impact of Linguistic Prediction Violations on Downstream Recognition Memory and Sentence Recall. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 36:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Schmidtke, Daniel, Sadaf Rahmanian & Anna L. Moro
2024. Reading experience drives L2 reading speed development: a longitudinal study of EAL reading habits. Frontiers in Education 9
Torres, Julio
2023. Exploring working memory and language dominance in heritage bilinguals’ writing processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45:3 ► pp. 710 ff.
Suzuki, Yuichi, Satoko Yokosawa & David Aline
2022. The role of working memory in blocked and interleaved grammar practice: Proceduralization of L2 syntax. Language Teaching Research 26:4 ► pp. 671 ff.
Monaghan, Padraic, Simón Ruiz & Patrick Rebuschat
2021. The role of feedback and instruction on the cross-situational learning of vocabulary and morphosyntax: Mixed effects models reveal local and global effects on acquisition. Second Language Research 37:2 ► pp. 261 ff.
Roberts, Leah & Sarah Ann Liszka
2021. Grammatical aspect and L2 learners’ online processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences in English: A self-paced reading study with German, Dutch and French L2 learners. Second Language Research 37:4 ► pp. 619 ff.
Jackson, Daniel O.
2019. The Potential Relationship Between Openness and Explicit Versus Implicit L2 Knowledge. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48:2 ► pp. 289 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.