Cover not available
Squib published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 13:3 (2023) ► pp.299–314
Squib

The LexTALE as a measure of L2 global proficiency

A cautionary tale based on a partial replication of Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012)

ORCID logo | King’s College London
| The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
| Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
| Universidad de Granada
The role of proficiency is widely discussed in multilingual language acquisition research, and yet, there is little consensus as to how one should operationalize it in our empirical investigations. The present study assesses the validity of the LexTALE (Lemhöfer & Broersma, 2012) as a ‘quick and valid’ measure of global proficiency. We first provide an overview review of how the LexTALE has been used since its publication, showing that although the test has gained popularity in the last few years, its reliability has not been thoroughly examined. Thus, herein we present results of a partial replication of Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012), where we empirically assess the validity of the LexTALE as a measure of L2 global proficiency in two groups of learners of English with various degrees of proficiency (L1 Spanish, n = 288; L1 Chinese, n = 266). Results indicate that if we are to use LexTALE in our investigations, we should do so with caution as the analyses show that irrespective of the L1 and level of proficiency of the targeted participants, its reliability as a measure of global proficiency is under question evidenced by the low and moderate correlations found with a standardised measure of global proficiency.
Keywords: LexTALE, L2 global proficiency, vocabulary size, conceptual replication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The LexTALE: What is it?
  • 3.The LexTALE: How has it been used?
  • 4.A partial replication of Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012)
  • 5.Methods
    • 5.1General procedure and instruments
    • 5.2Participants
  • 6.Results and discussion
  • 7.A concerning state of affairs and implications for future research
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22048.pui
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L.
(1995) The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2). University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.
(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2011) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2011) Language Proficiency in Native and Nonnative Speakers: An Agenda for Research and Suggestions for Second-Language Assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8 (3), 229–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (2), 422–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lado, R.
(1961) Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M.
(2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44 (2), 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McManus, K.
(2022) Are replication studies infrequent because of negative attitudes?: Insights from a survey of attitudes and practices in second language research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1410–1423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malovth, P., & Benati, A.
(2018) The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.)). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D.
(2018) Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field. Language Learning, 68 (2), 321–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P.
(1996) English Vocabulary Tests: 10 k. Unpublished manuscript. Center for Applied Language Studies.Google Scholar
Nakata, T., Tamura, Y., & Aubrey, S.
(2020) Examining the Validity of the LexTALE Test for Japanese College Students. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 17 (2), 335–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2003) Defining and Measuring SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 716–761). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Assessing learner knowledge. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 573–589). Routledge.Google Scholar
Park, H. I., Solon, M., Dehghan-Chaleshtori, M., & Ghanbar, H.
(2022) Proficiency Reporting Practices in Research on Second Language Acquisition: Have We Made any Progress? Language Learning, 72 (1), 198–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porte, G., & McManus, K.
(2019) Doing Replication Research in Applied Linguistics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, M.
(1994) Assessment of L2 Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition Research. Language Learning, 44 (2), 307–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279–298). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, B.
(2007) Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychology in the Schools, 441, 423–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A.
(2011) Proficiency Assessment Standards in Second Language Acquisition Research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (3), 339–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar