Cited by 40EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismMemory Processes and Influences

THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF PROCEDURAL MEMORY ASSESSMENTS USED IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH

Open access
Buffington, Joshua, Demos, Alexander P., Morgan-Short, Kara·2021·Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Published 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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263121000127

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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