Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 90

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ASSESSING SECOND-LANGUAGE ORAL PROFICIENCY FOR RESEARCH: The Spanish Elicited Imitation Task

Bowden, Harriet Wood·2016·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263115000443
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Proficiency is a key variable in late second language (L2) learning, but one that is undermeasured in current research. This study investigates whether L2 oral proficiency can be quickly and reliably assessed via the Spanish “elicited imitation task” (EIT; Ortega, Iwashita, Rabie, & Norris, 1999). Thirty-seven L2 learners of Spanish with varied L2 experience (from low to very advanced) were tested. The EIT’s external validity was assessed via correlation with the simulated oral proficiency interview. Further analyses examined the EIT’s internal reliability, discriminatory power, and usefulness in identifying subgroups (clusters) of learners within the sample. Results strongly support the utility of the Spanish EIT for measurement of oral proficiency in SLA research. Moreover, the availability of parallel EITs in other languages promises to facilitate comparisons across studies. Thus, more precise measurement and analysis of proficiency in SLA research is called for via standardized measurements including the EIT.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263115000443

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Ortega L. , Iwashita N. , Norris J. , & Rabie S . (2002, October). An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum Conference, Toronto.
  2. Malone, 2000, ERIC, ERIC Digest
  3. Ortega, 1999, A multilanguage comparison of measures of syntactic complexity
  4. Brown, 2000, Statistics Corner. Questions and answers about language testing statistics (how can we calculate item statistics for weighted items?), Shiken: JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 3, 19
  5. Brown, 2003, Norm-referenced item analysis (item facilitation and item discrimination), Shiken: JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 7, 16
  6. Brown, 1997, Statistics Corner. Questions and answers about language testing statistics (skewness and kurtosis), Shiken: JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 1, 20
  7. Zhou S . (2011). Learning to express motion events in L2 Chinese: A cognitive linguistic perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.
  8. Tremblay, 2010, Selected proceedings of the Second Language Research Forum 2008, 73

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bowden, H. W.
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
647-675
ISSN
  • 0272-2631
  • 1470-1545
DOI
10.1017/s0272263115000443
Cited by
90
References
37
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.