The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ELICITED IMITATION TASKS AS A MEASURE OF L2 PROFICIENCY: A META-ANALYSIS
Abstract
Elicited imitation tasks (EITs) have been proposed and examined as a practical measure of second language (L2) proficiency. This study aimed to provide an updated and comprehensive view of the relationship between EITs and other proficiency measures. Toward that end, 46 reports were retrieved contributing 60 independent effect sizes (Pearson’s r ) that were weighted and averaged. Several EIT features were also examined as potential moderators. The results portray EIT as a generally consistent measure of L2 proficiency ( r = .66). Among other moderators, EIT stimuli length was positively associated with stronger correlations. Overall, the findings provide support for the use of EITs as a means to greater consistency and practicality in measuring L2 proficiency. In our Discussion section, we highlight the need for more transparent reporting and provide empirically grounded recommendations for EIT design and for further research into EIT development.
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
“In a recent meta-analysis of 60 independent effect sizes, Kostromitina and Plonsky (2021) reported that the elicited imitation task is a reliable measure of language proficiency.”
From What Heritage Bilinguals Tell Us about the Language of Emotion (2022) · cites this paper as Kostromitina and Plonsky 2021
Citations
Cites
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793
Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing
Spolsky, B., & Bachman, L. F. (1991) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329499 · Cited by 4,362
How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12079 · Cited by 1,960
Self-citationSecond Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1993) · Cited by 1,611
The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
(2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203808184 · Cited by 1,124
MEASURING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF A SECOND LANGUAGE: A Psychometric Study
Ellis, R. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050096 · Cited by 1,032
Suurmond, R., van Rhee, H., & Hak, T. (2017) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1260 · Cited by 881
Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching
(2006) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.13 · Cited by 608
Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(63)80076-6 · Cited by 513
Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0024445 · Cited by 493
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Ortega, 2002, An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research
- Michaud, 2021, Timing of form-focused instruction within a task
- Graham, 2010, Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, 57
- Gray, 2017, Explicit and implicit second language knowledge measurement: Effects of an extended focus-on-form tasked-based pedagogy, OSAKA JALT, 4, 34
- Kaplan, 1994, Elicited imitation tasks in L2 acquisition research
- Hameyer, 1980, Testing oral proficiency via elicited imitation, Revue de Phonétique Appliquée Mons, 53, 11
- Christensen, 2010, Proceedings of the 7th conference on international language resources and evaluation (LREC)
- Révész, 2021, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 21
- 10.21832/9781783092291-011 · DOI
- Ortega, 1999, A multilanguage comparison of measures of syntactic complexity
- Hendrickson, R. , Aitken, M. , McGhee, J. , & Johnson, A. (2010). What makes an item difficult? A syntactic, lexical, and morphological study of elicited imitation test items. In Prior, M. T. , Watanabe, Y. , & Lee, S. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 48–56). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
- Harsch, 2021, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 33
- Finestrat Martinez, 2021, Exploring the effect of L1 grammatical skills in L2 development in two learning contexts
- Lonsdale, 2011, Paper presented at the Symposium on Machine Learning in Speech and Language Processing
- Pallotti, 2021, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 201
- Naiman, 1974, The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 2, 1
- Faretta-Stutenberg, 2020, Two versions of the Ortega et al. Spanish Elicited Imitation Task: Utility for longitudinal research
- Daugherity, 2008, A correlative study of the International English Language Testing System listening test and a new repetition test
Cited by
Utilizing ASReview in screening primary studies for meta-research in SLA: A step-by-step tutorial
Quan, Y., Tytko, T., & Hui, B. (2024) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100101 · Cited by 64
What Heritage Bilinguals Tell Us about the Language of Emotion
Vargas Fuentes, N. A., Kroll, J. F., & Torres, J. (2022) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages7020144 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Kostromitina, M., & Plonsky, L.
- ORCID
- Plonsky, Luke
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-08-13
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 886-911
- ISSN
- 0272-2631
- 1470-1545
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 116
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ELICITED IMITATION TASKS AS A MEASURE OF L2 PROFICIENCY: A META-ANALYSIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0272263121000395
- The paper
- Kostromitina, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022). ELICITED IMITATION TASKS AS A MEASURE OF L2 PROFICIENCY: A META-ANALYSIS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263121000395
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.
