Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 6:2 (2020) ► pp.237–251
Materials & Methods Report

Inter-rater reliability in Learner Corpus Research

Insights from a collaborative study on adverb placement

| Uppsala University
| FNRS | UCLouvain
| Northern Arizona University
In Learner Corpus Research (LCR), a common source of errors stems from manual coding and annotation of linguistic features. To estimate the amount of error present in a coded dataset, coefficients of inter-rater reliability are used. However, despite the importance of reliability and internal consistency for validity and, by extension, study quality, interpretability and generalizability, it is surprisingly uncommon for studies in the field of LCR to report on such reliability coefficients. In this Methods Report, we use a recent collaborative research project to illustrate the pertinence of considering inter-rater reliability. In doing so, we hope to initiate methodological discussion on instrument design, piloting and evaluation. We also suggest some ways forward to encourage increased transparency in reporting practices.
Keywords: inter-rater reliability, coding errors, reporting practices, study quality, Fleiss’ kappa
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Working towards increased reliability in a study on adverb placement
    • 2.1The coding scheme
    • 2.2Piloting the coding scheme and estimating inter-rater reliability
    • 2.3Revising the coding scheme
    • 2.4From a single-coder to a double-coder approach
  • 3.Conclusion and ways forward
  • Note
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20001.lar
References (39)
References
Andreu-Andrés, M., Astor-Guardiola, A., Boquera-Matarredona, M., Macdonald, P., Montero-Fleta, B., & Pérez-Sabater, C. (2010). Analysing EFL learner output in the MiLC project: An error it’s*, but which tag?. In M. C. Campoy-Cubillo, B. Bellés-Fortuño, & M. Ll. Gea-Valor (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 167–188). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Artstein, R. (2017). Inter-annotator agreement. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (pp. 297–313). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 201, 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collentine, K. (2009). Learner use of holistic language units in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 131, 67–87.Google Scholar
Derrick, D. (2015). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 132–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (2015). Dealing with errors in learner corpora to describe, teach and assess EFL writing: Focus on article use. In E. Castello, K. Ackerley, & F. Coccetta (Eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and applications for foreign language teaching and assessment (pp. 37–69). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I., & Singh, P. (2012). irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. R package version 0.84.Google Scholar
Hallgren, K. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. (2010). Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., & Gordon, B. (2010). The relation between score resolution methods and interrater reliability: An empirical study of an analytic scoring rubric. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutuk, G., Putwain, D. W., Kaye, L., & Garrett, B. (in press). Development and validation of a new multidimensional language class anxiety scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 331, 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T. (2018). Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing. ICAME Journal, 42(1), 13–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T., Callies, M., Hasselgård, H., Laso, N. J., Van Vuuren, S., Verdaguer, I., & Paquot, M. (2020). Adverb placement in EFL academic writing: Going beyond syntactic transfer. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 25(2), 155–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 127–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2015). An A–Z of applied linguistics research methods. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, A., & Hirschmann, H. (2015). Error annotation systems. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 135–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKay, T., & Plonsky, L. (in press). Reliability analyses: Estimating error in L2 research. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Morgan, G. B., Zhu, M., Johnson, R. L., & Hodge, K. J. (2014). Interrater reliability estimators commonly used in scoring language assessments: A Monte Carlo investigation of estimator accuracy. Language Assessment Quarterly, 111, 304–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S. J., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65(2), 470–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J. (2003). Effect sizes and the disattenuation of correlation and regression coefficients: Lessons from educational psychology. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 8(11). Retrieved from [URL]
Paquot, M., Hasselgård, H., & Oksefjell Ebeling, S. (2013). Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, moving ahead. Proceedings of the first Learner Corpus Research Conference (LCR 2011) (pp. 377–387). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Paquot, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2019). Particle placement alternation in EFL learner vs. L1 speech: Assessing the similarity of probabilistic grammars. In A. Abel, A. Glaznieks, V. Lyding, & L. Nicolas (Eds.), Widening the scope of learner corpus research: Selected papers from the fourth Learner Corpus Research Conference (pp. 71–92). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 61–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 655–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 1001, 538–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Shea, M. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26(1), 10–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purpura, J., Brown, J. D., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Improving the validity of quantitative measures in applied linguistics research. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 37–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Révész, A. (2012). Coding second language data validly and reliably. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in Second Language Acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 203–221). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2014). The PhonBank Project: Data and software-assisted methods for the study of phonology and phonological development. In J. Durand, U. Gut, & G. Kristoffersen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology (pp. 380–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, A., Hana, J., Stindlova, B., & Feldman, A. (2014). Evaluating and automating the annotation of a learner corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, 481, 65–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, W., & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trafimow, D. (2017). The attenuation of correlation coefficients: A statistical literacy issue. Teaching Statistics, 381, 25–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N. (2016). KANDEL: A developmental corpus of learner German. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1), 102–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Chong, Sin Wang & Luke Plonsky
2024. A typology of secondary research in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 15:4 ► pp. 1569 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Minjin, Xixin Qiu & Yuanheng (Arthur) Wang
2024. Interrater agreement in genre analysis: A methodological review and a comparison of three measures. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 100097 ff. DOI logo
Listanti, Andrea & Jacopo Torregrossa
2024. The development of postverbal subjects in L2 Italian: A multifactorial corpus analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics 45:1 ► pp. 180 ff. DOI logo
Minnillo, Sophia, Claudia Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Ana Ruiz-Alonso-Bartol, Emily Morgan & Carmen González Gómez
2024. Predictors of accuracy in L2 Spanish preterit-imperfect production. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research DOI logo
Paquot, Magali
2024. Learner corpus research: a critical appraisal and roadmap for contributing (more) to SLA research agendas. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Song, Yingming & Jiajin Xu
2024. Variation in phrase frame structure and function in argumentative writing by EFL learners across different L1 backgrounds. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Hober, Nicole, Tülay Dixon & Tove Larsson
2023. Towards increased reliability and transparency in projects with manual linguistic coding. Corpora 18:2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Love, Robbie & Anna-Brita Stenstrom
2023. Corpus-pragmatic perspectives on the contemporary weakening of fuck: The case of teenage British English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 216 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Rygg, Kristin & Stine Hulleberg Johansen
2023. When the Norwegian ‘politeness marker’ vennligst becomes impolite. Journal of Politeness Research 19:2 ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Tim
2022. Measuring lexical accuracy. In Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 104], ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
2022. Chapter 15. Contributing to the advancement of the field:. In Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove, Randi Reppen & Tülay Dixon
2022. A phraseological study of highlighting strategies in novice and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 60 ► pp. 101179 ff. DOI logo
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana, Alena Konina, Nitin Williams, Nina Mikušová & Anna Mauranen
2022. Perceptual chunking of spontaneous speech: Validating a new method with non-native listeners. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 100012 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove, Luke Plonsky & Gregory R. Hancock
2021. On the benefits of structural equation modeling for corpus linguists. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:3 ► pp. 683 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 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.