THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF PROCEDURAL MEMORY ASSESSMENTS USED IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Evidence for the role of procedural memory in second language (L2) acquisition has emerged in our field. However, little is known about the reliability and validity of the procedural memory measures used in this research. The present study ( N = 119) examined the reliability and the convergent and discriminant validity of three assessments that have previously been used to examine procedural memory learning ability in L2 acquisition, the dual-task Weather Prediction Task (DT-WPT), the Alternating Serial Reaction Time Task (ASRT), and the Tower of London (TOL). Measures of declarative memory learning ability were also collected. For reliability, the DT-WPT and TOL tasks met acceptable standards. For validity, an exploratory factor analysis did not provide evidence for convergent validity, but the ASRT and the TOL showed reasonable discriminant validity with declarative memory measures. We argue that the ASRT may provide the purest engagement of procedural memory learning ability, although more reliable dependent measures for this task should be considered. The Serial Reaction Time task also appears promising, although we recommend further consideration of this task as the present analyses were post hoc and based on a smaller sample. We discuss these results regarding the assessment of procedural memory learning ability as well as implications for implicit language aptitude.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The strength of the association between CVMT and LLAMA-B was moderate and of comparable magnitude or larger than those reported in previous research.
“The strength of their association was moderate and of comparable magnitude or larger than those reported in previous research (e.g., Morgan-Short et al., 2014, with r = .149for MLAT-CVMT; Buffington, Demos & Morgan-Short, 2021, with r = .469for DecLearn-CVMT and r = .273for MLAT-CVMT).”
From Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition (2025) · cites this paper as Buffington, Demos & Morgan-Short, 2021
Cites
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053 · see citing works
Howard, M. C. (2016) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664 · Cited by 1,349 · see citing works
Declarative and Nondeclarative Memory: Multiple Brain Systems Supporting Learning and Memory
Squire, L. R. (1992) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.232 · Cited by 1,282 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Extensive behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging work has provided evidence for dissociable learning and memory systems (Eichenbaum, 2012; Gabrieli, 1998; Reber, 2013; Squire, 1994; Squire et al., 1994; Ullman, 2004, 2016; Ullman et al., 2020; Willingham et al., 2002).”
BackgroundConscious and Unconscious Memory Systems
Squire, L. R., & Dede, A. J. O. (2015) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a021667 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
DeKeyser, R. (2020) · Theories in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.4324/9780429503986-5 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory: An Introduction
Eichenbaum, H. (2002) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195141740.001.0001 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
The Declarative/Procedural Model
Ullman, M. T. (2016) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition
Maie, R., & Godfroid, A. (2025) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226312500021x · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Buffington, J., Demos, A. P., & Morgan-Short, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Buffington, Joshua
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 635-662
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W3179481370
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 31.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- procedural memory, second language acquisition, reliability statistics, convergent validity, discriminant validity, Tower of London, declarative memory, implicit learning
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