Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61

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

Kostromitina, Maria, Plonsky, Luke·2022·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263121000395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263121000395

Cites

116 of 116 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

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Ortega, 2002, An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research
  2. Michaud, 2021, Timing of form-focused instruction within a task
  3. Graham, 2010, Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, 57
  4. Gray, 2017, Explicit and implicit second language knowledge measurement: Effects of an extended focus-on-form tasked-based pedagogy, OSAKA JALT, 4, 34
  5. Kaplan, 1994, Elicited imitation tasks in L2 acquisition research
  6. Hameyer, 1980, Testing oral proficiency via elicited imitation, Revue de Phonétique Appliquée Mons, 53, 11
  7. Christensen, 2010, Proceedings of the 7th conference on international language resources and evaluation (LREC)
  8. Révész, 2021, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 21
  9. 10.21832/9781783092291-011 · DOI
  10. Ortega, 1999, A multilanguage comparison of measures of syntactic complexity
  11. 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.
  12. Harsch, 2021, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 33
  13. Finestrat Martinez, 2021, Exploring the effect of L1 grammatical skills in L2 development in two learning contexts
  14. Lonsdale, 2011, Paper presented at the Symposium on Machine Learning in Speech and Language Processing
  15. Pallotti, 2021, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 201
  16. Naiman, 1974, The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 2, 1
  17. Faretta-Stutenberg, 2020, Two versions of the Ortega et al. Spanish Elicited Imitation Task: Utility for longitudinal research
  18. Daugherity, 2008, A correlative study of the International English Language Testing System listening test and a new repetition test

Cited by

See all 61

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
DOI
10.1017/s0272263121000395
Cited by
61
References
116
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.