The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Testing Language Aptitude: LLAMA Evolution and Refinement
Abstract
The chapter will first provide an overview of the developmental stages of the LLAMA aptitude test battery since its inception in 2005; then, more importantly, the chapter moves on to discuss the potential limitations of the current format in terms of internal and external validity. Towards the end, it will outline some new features and changes that have recently been brought to this increasingly popular language aptitude test battery. Data from the new online LLAMA tests will be reported (from LLAMA to ALPACAA and back again). The new LLAMA tests are now available online on Meara’s lognostics website: http://www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/LLAMA_3/index.htm .
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Reliability of the LLAMA subtests based on version 3 was excellent, suggesting that recent improvements to the test suite have had the desired impact (Rogers et al., 2023): LLAMA B = 0.95, LLAMA E = 0.95, LLAMA F = 0.97.”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Rogers et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“the new version 3 (https://llamatests.org) is much improved in terms of performance, reliability, and validity (see Rogers et al., 2023)”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Rogers et al., 2023
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction
Roehr‐Brackin, K., Baranowska, K., Pavlekovic, R., & Scheffler, P. (2024) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12963 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Rogers, V., Meara, P., & Rogers, B.
- Venue
- Language Aptitude Theory and Practice
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2023-04-27
- Pages
- 47-72
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
