CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningSecond Language Learning and Teaching

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The prediction from MLAT to L2 achievement is largely due to MLAT assessment of underlying L1 abilities

Open access
Sparks, Richard L., Dale, Philip S.·2023·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263123000037
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Widespread use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) in L2 studies of individual differences implicitly assumes that L2 aptitude is a distinct cognitive facet. There is considerable evidence for prediction from L1 abilities to L2 learning. In this longitudinal study, L1-MLAT-L2 relations were examined in 307 US secondary students based on six L1 and six L2 measures of language and literacy, and the MLAT. Mediation and regression analyses revealed that each L1 measure individually predicted all L2 scores and MLAT; the L1 measures collectively substantially predicted MLAT scores; MLAT is a significant but moderate mediator of prediction from L1 to L2 scores; and prediction from MLAT to L2 scores is significantly and substantially due to variance in L1 abilities captured by MLAT. Overall, prediction from MLAT is due primarily to its functioning as a measure of L1 abilities, although substantial L1 variance which predicts L2 scores is not captured by the MLAT.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a longitudinal study of 307 US secondary Spanish learners, L1 abilities predicted both MLAT scores and L2 achievement, and the MLAT’s prediction of L2 achievement was largely attributable to the L1 variance it captures. However, the MLAT missed substantial L1 variance that also predicted L2 outcomes.

Key findings

  • All L1 measures significantly predicted MLAT performance, with correlations from .223 to .443; L1 word decoding was the strongest predictor. Together, six L1 measures predicted MLAT with multiple R = .524 (adjusted R² = .26), with vocabulary, working memory, language analysis, and word decoding significant, but reading comprehension and writing not significant.
  • MLAT correlated positively and significantly with all L2 measures: L2 reading Year 1 r = .389 and Year 2 r = .457; listening comprehension Year 1 r = .422 and Year 2 r = .452; writing Year 1 r = .425 and Year 2 r = .479; oral proficiency r = .326.
  • Most MLAT–L2 prediction was due to L1 variance: 59.6–87.4% of the variance in MLAT–L2 prediction was attributable to inclusion of L1 measures, while the unique MLAT contribution was ≤40.4% for all seven L2 measures and ≤23.0% for most.
  • MLAT mediation of L1-to-L2 prediction averaged about 50% (moderate efficiency); it was less efficient for L1 word decoding, vocabulary, and writing, e.g., only 14.9% for word decoding to L2 reading Year 1 and 15.4% for Year 2.

Methods

  • Longitudinal design with 307 US secondary students randomly chosen from first-year Spanish courses in four high schools; 154 males and 153 females, mean age 15 years 7 months, monolingual English speakers with no prior Spanish.
  • Measures included six L1 language/literacy measures, L1 working memory, the MLAT, and six L2 Spanish achievement measures; L2 oral proficiency was assessed only at the end of second year.
  • Analyses used correlations, multiple regression, and simple mediation via SPSS PROCESS v4.0; missing data (7.5%) were imputed by expectation maximization after Little’s MCAR test was non-significant (χ² = 84.723, df = 69, p = .096).

Limitations

  • Stated: the study used the MLAT as the single aptitude measure, so conclusions about the specific measure and the broader aptitude construct may not be clearly distinguished.
  • Stated: findings are limited to conventional classroom-based L2 learning in the US, with two years of Spanish, a language typologically close to English; some Spanish subtests required single-word responses.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was 301 Caucasian, 4 African American, and 2 East Asian students, which may further limit generalizability; oral proficiency was measured only at the end of second year.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263123000037

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 33 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Each L1 measure individually predicted all L2 scores and MLAT.

    “each L1 measure individually predicted all L2 scores and MLAT”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    MLAT is a significant but moderate mediator of prediction from L1 to L2 scores.

    “MLAT is a significant but moderate mediator of prediction from L1 to L2 scores”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Substantial L1 variance which predicts L2 scores is not captured by the MLAT.

    “substantial L1 variance which predicts L2 scores is not captured by the MLAT”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The L1 measures collectively substantially predicted MLAT scores.

    “the L1 measures collectively substantially predicted MLAT scores”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Prediction from MLAT to L2 scores is significantly and substantially due to variance in L1 abilities captured by MLAT.

    “prediction from MLAT to L2 scores is significantly and substantially due to variance in L1 abilities captured by MLAT”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 31

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    All L1 measures significantly predict MLAT performance, with correlations ranging from .223 to .443.

    “all L1 measures significantly predict MLAT performance, with correlations of .223-.443.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Table 2 also shows that all L1 measures significantly predicted MLAT performance with correlations ranging from .223-.443.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    L1 word decoding is the strongest predictor of L2 oral proficiency (r=.343), followed by L1 reading comprehension (r=.325) and L1 writing (r=.324).

    “L1 word decoding is also the strongest predictor of L2 oral proficiency (.343), followed by L1 reading comprehension (.325) and L1 writing (.324).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    MLAT efficiency for extracting information for L1 reading comprehension decreased from Year 1 to Year 2 for all three L2 variables: from 60% to 34% for L2 reading, 61% to 36% for L2 listening comprehension, and 57% to 43% for L2 writing.

    “The MLAT became less efficient for extracting information for L1 reading comprehension over time from Year 1 to Year 2 for all three L2 variables, that is, from 60% to 34% for L2 reading, 61% to 36% for L2 listening comprehension, from 57% to 43% for L2 writing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    All correlations between MLAT and L2 achievement are positive and significant, and predictions from MLAT to second-year L2 achievement are modestly but consistently higher than predictions to first-year L2 achievement.

    “Table 2 shows that not only are all correlations between MLAT and L2 achievement positive and significant but also that the predictions from MLAT, like those from the L1 measures to second-year L2 achievement, were modestly, but consistently, higher than the predictions to first-year L2 achievement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    MLAT efficiency is higher for L1 reading comprehension, language analysis, and working memory, although these measures are the weakest predictors of L2 scores generally.

    “Higher MLAT efficiency is found for L1 reading comprehension, language analysis, and working memory, although these measures are the weakest predictors of L2 scores generally.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In the present study, correlations between MLAT and L2 achievement were up to .457 for L2 reading, .452 for L2 listening comprehension, and .479 for L2 writing.

    “The results of the present study are generally consistent with but somewhat stronger than those reported by Li (2019), for example, up to .457 for L2 reading, .452for L2 listening comprehension, and .479for L2 writing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    L1 word decoding is the strongest L1 predictor of L2 achievement, followed by L1 vocabulary.

    “In general, the strongest L1 predictor is word decoding, followed by vocabulary.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Adding either the WRMT Basic Skills Cluster or the TOWRE to the MLAT approximately doubles the prediction to L2 reading and makes a substantial contribution to the prediction of Listening Comprehension (especially Year 2) and L2 Writing.

    “As shown in Table S2, adding either of these measures to the MLAT approximately doubles the prediction to L2 reading and also makes a substantial contribution to the prediction of Listening Comprehension (especially Year 2) and L2 Writing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The unique contribution of the MLAT for the prediction of L2 measures was ≤ 40.4% for all seven measures, and ≤ 23.0% for the majority of them.

    “The unique contribution of the MLAT for the prediction of L2 measures expressed as a proportion of the total prediction was ≤ 40.4% for all seven measures, and ≤ 23.0 % for the majority of them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    MLAT efficiency was low for L1 word decoding predicting L2 reading (15%) and L2 writing (26%-32%); L1 vocabulary predicting L2 listening comprehension (27%-28%) and L2 writing (30%-31%); and L1 writing predicting L2 writing (35%-36%) and L2 listening comprehension in Year 2 (26%).

    “In particular, the MLAT was largely inefficient at extracting variance about L1 word decoding for L2 reading (15%) and L2 writing (26%-32%) in Years 1 and 2; L1 vocabulary for L2 listening comprehension (27%-28%) and L2 writing (30%-31%) in Years 1 and 2; and L1 writing for L2 writing (35%-36%) in Years 1 and 2 and for L2 listening comprehension in Year 2 (26%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The MLAT has been found to be a reliable predictor of language learning success, demonstrating correlations of .40-.65 with end-of-year course performance in intensive L2 instruction.

    “The MLAT has been found to be a reliable predictor of language learning success, demonstrating correlations of .40-.65 with end-of-year course performance in intensive L2 instruction (Skehan, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Skehan, 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Uniqueness and efficiency are in principle independent: uniqueness and efficiency could be both high or low, or either one could be high or the other low.

    “The importance of these definitions is that they are in principle independent: uniqueness and efficiency could be both high or low, or either one could be high or the other low.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sample size provides 80% power for detecting significant correlations of r = .16 or greater.

    “provides 80% power for detecting significant correlations of r = .16or greater”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample size substantially exceeds the widely used informal guideline of ten subjects per predictor variable for regressions.

    “It substantially exceeds the widely used informal guideline of ten subjects per predictor variable for regressions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The results can be taken as likely features of the construct more broadly.

    “The results can be taken as likely features of the construct more broadly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductown data

    A total of 293 of the 307 students completed the first-year Spanish course.

    “A total of 293 (148 females and 145 males) of the 307 students completed the first-year Spanish course.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Students can more easily find alternative ways to cope with the difficulties they encounter in the early stages of language learning.

    “It may also be the case that students can more easily find alternative ways to cope with the difficulties they encounter in the early stages of language learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Researchers have suggested that metalinguistic awareness and language aptitude can be considered partially overlapping constructs, and consequently tests of language aptitude and metalinguistic awareness may assess overlapping skills.

    “For some time, researchers have suggested that metalinguistic awareness and language aptitude can be considered partially overlapping constructs (Herdina & Jessner, 2002;Jessner, 2006); consequently, tests of language aptitude and metalinguistic awareness may assess overlapping skills (Ellis, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Herdina & Jessner, 2002 source
    • cites Jessner, 2006 source
    • cites Ellis, 2004 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Students in a second year of L2 are necessarily working with a stronger and broader understanding and grasp of the language structure of the target language.

    “This may be so because students in a second year of L2 are necessarily working with a stronger and broader understanding and grasp of the language structure of the target language.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Roehr-Brackin (2018) reviewed research underscoring the link between the onset of literacy and the development of metalinguistic awareness.

    “Roehr-Brackin (2018) has reviewed research underscoring the link between the onset of literacy and the development of metalinguistic awareness (see also, Bialystok, 2001;Yelland et al., 1993).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Roehr-Brackin (2018) source
    • cites Bialystok, 2001 source
    • cites Yelland et al., 1993 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Sparks et al. found that MLAT scores of both low-achieving and average-to-high-achieving groups of secondary level L2 learners increased one standard deviation after one year of Spanish instruction, and the gains were maintained over a second year.

    “One explanation for these results could be based on findings from Sparks et al., who found that the MLAT scores of both low-achieving and average-to high-achieving groups of secondary level L2 learners increased one standard deviation after one year of Spanish instruction, and that the gains were maintained over a second year of Spanish (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993b;Sparks et al., 1992Sparks et al., ,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sparks & Ganschow, 1993b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Sparks et al., 1992 source
    • cites Sparks et al., 1998 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Some of the subtests on the Spanish measure used in this study called for single word responses to the test items.

    “A third limitation is that some of the subtests on the Spanish measure used in this study called for single word responses to the test items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The development of literacy leads to enhanced metalinguistic awareness, which further enhances literacy skills.

    “However, it is the development of literacy that leads to enhanced metalinguistic awareness (e.g., Kurvers et al., 2006;Tunmer et al., 1988), which further enhances literacy skills.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kurvers et al., 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Tunmer et al., 1988 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    Spanish may be present in the oral and print environment to some extent, and reasonably valued, or at least not strongly disfavored in the larger society; these features may have a strong impact on motivation.

    “Furthermore, Spanish may be present in the oral and print environment to some extent, and reasonably valued, or at least not strongly disfavored in the larger society; these are features that may have a strong impact on motivation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study includes a single context of learning in the United States with only two years of L2 learning, which is typical for US L2 learners.

    “A related issue is that the study includes a single context of learning in the United States with only two years of L2 learning, which is typical for US L2 learners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study has a large and representative sample, comprehensive L1 measures, and a prospective design.

    “The strengths of this study are a large and representative sample, comprehensive L1 measures, and a prospective design.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The L2 for all students is Spanish, which has a typologically close relationship with English.

    “Likewise, the L2 for all students is Spanish, for which there is a typologically close relationship with English.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    The L1 measures and the MLAT both measure language ability but do so differently, assessing contextualized versus decontextualized material.

    “One easy answer is that the L1 measures and the MLAT both measure language ability but do so differently, that is, assessing contextualized versus decontextualized material.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    There must be a more ambitious explanation for the overlap between L1 ability and L2 aptitude.

    “This developmental evidence suggests that there must be a more ambitious explanation for the overlap between L1 ability and L2 aptitude.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Li (2019) reported correlations of .30-.39 between several aptitude batteries and specific L2 skills.

    “In his review, Li (2019) reported correlations of .30-.39 between several aptitude batteries and specific L2 skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li (2019)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    There may be other distinctive cognitive and socioemotional skills, besides language and literacy, that are important for L2 learning.

    “However, there may be other distinctive cognitive and socioemotional skills important for L2 learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Language and literacy are central in a model of language aptitude because language skills are necessary for L2 learning.

    “Language and literacy are central in a model of language aptitude because language skills are necessary for L2 learning.(Skehan, 2019;Sparks et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Skehan, 2019 source
    • cites Sparks et al., 2019 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The MLAT is a consistently strong and reliable predictor of L2 achievement.

    “The findings from the current study and others confirm that the MLAT is a consistently strong and reliable predictor of L2 achievement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The instruction is occurring after the development of literacy, as opposed to early simultaneous bilingualism.

    “The instruction is occurring after the development of literacy, as opposed to early simultaneous bilingualism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The degree of orthographic similarity/difference may be relevant, given the importance of phonological awareness and word decoding as predictors of outcome.

    “The degree of orthographic similarity/difference may also be relevant, given the importance of phonological awareness and word decoding as predictors of outcome.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The use of the MLAT as the single aptitude measure means that results concerning the specific measure and conclusions about aptitude may not be clearly distinguished.

    “The first and most general of these was introduced earlier: the use of the MLAT as the single aptitude measure, so that results concerning the specific measure and the conclusions about aptitude may not be clearly distinguished.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The MLAT is heavily dependent on literacy ability.

    “Another straightforward answer is that the MLAT is heavily dependent on literacy ability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The results of this study are critical of the conventional interpretation of the MLAT.

    “First, although the results of this study are critical of the conventional interpretation of the MLAT, they do not constitute a criticism of the MLAT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Sparks et al. (2006) found stronger correlations between MLAT scores and L2 word decoding (.61), L2 reading comprehension (.62), L2 writing (.58), and L2 listening/speaking (.54).

    “However, in their 10-year study, Sparks et al. (2006) found stronger correlations between MLAT scores and students' performance in L2 word decoding (.61), L2 reading comprehension (.62), L2 writing (.58), and L2 listening/speaking (.54).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sparks et al. (2006) source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The overlap between MLAT and L1 measures is especially true for phonetic coding ability (MLAT Phonetic Script and L1 word decoding) and vocabulary knowledge (MLAT Spelling Clues and L1 vocabulary).

    “This may be especially true for phonetic coding ability, which is measured by MLAT Phonetic Script subtest and the L1 word decoding measures, and vocabulary knowledge, which is measured by MLAT Spelling Clues subtest and the L1 vocabulary measure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Some studies have found metalinguistic awareness and language learning aptitude to be partially overlapping constructs, while others have found them to be distinguishable.

    “In some studies, metalinguistic awareness and language learning aptitude have been found to be partially overlapping constructs (e.g., see Jessner, 2006), but others have found that metalinguistic knowledge and language aptitude are distinguishable constructs (Roehr-Brackin, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jessner, 2006 source
    • cites Roehr-Brackin, 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    The MLAT and the L1 measures are to some extent assessing different abilities.

    “Another possible but not mutually exclusive explanation for the aforementioned findings is that the MLAT and the L1 measures are to some extent assessing different abilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Skehan (1986) reported that early L1 development in preschool, specifically vocabulary and language comprehension, was strongly correlated with L2 achievement several years later in high school.

    “Several years earlier, Skehan (1986) reported that early L1 development in preschool, specifically vocabulary and language comprehension, was strongly correlated with L2 achievement several years”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Skehan (1986) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The present study is focused on pedagogically conventional classroom-based L2 learning, rather than immersion or immigration-based learning.

    “A second limitation is that the present study is focused on pedagogically conventional classroom-based L2 learning, rather than immersion or immigration-based learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Sparks et al. (2009) found that the MLAT was the single best predictor of overall L2 proficiency, accounting for 56% of the variance, and was also the best predictor for most L2 skills.

    “In their longitudinal study over 10 years, Sparks et al. (2009) found that the MLAT was the single best predictor of overall L2 proficiency, accounting for 56% of the variance, and was also the best predictor for most L2 skills, that is, L2 spelling (52%), L2 reading comprehension (39%), L2 writing (34%), and L2 oral proficiency (29%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sparks et al. (2009) source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    L1 tests and MLAT subtests may be measuring similar skills (e.g., phonology, grammar, rote memory) but assessing different specific abilities in these domains.

    “These findings lend credence to the claim that L1 tests and MLAT subtests may be measuring similar skills, for example, phonology, grammar, rote memory, but assessing different specific abilities in these domains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    Having a single measure for an abstract construct entails that the conclusions can be relatively definitive with respect to that measure, while an inferential leap is required for the same conclusions about the construct more generally.

    “Having a single measure for an abstract construct entails that the conclusions can be relatively definitive with respect to that measure, while an inferential leap is required for the same conclusions about the construct more generally.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Some factor analytic investigations have found that L1 tests and MLAT subtests measuring similar skills load on the same factor, while other factor analyses have shown that all five MLAT subtests load on the same factor, depending on the L1 measures used.

    “In either case, some factor analytic investigations have found that L1 tests and MLAT subtests that measure similar skills, for example, phonetic coding, load on the same factor (Sparks et al., 2011), while other factor analyses have shown that all five MLAT subtests load on the same factor (Sparks et al., 2019), depending on the L1 measures used for the study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sparks et al., 2011 source
    • cites Sparks et al., 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    L1 literacy plays an important role for L2 learning.

    “Third, L2 educators should be aware that L1 literacy plays an important role for L2 learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    The skills involved in early oral language development and the skills necessary for L1 literacy competence are related to those measured by the MLAT.

    “The aforementioned findings suggest that the skills involved in early oral language development as well as the skills necessary for L1 literacy competence are related to those measured by an L2 aptitude test, in this case, the MLAT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
50 of 50

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Widespread use of the MLAT in L2 studies of individual differences implicitly assumes that L2 aptitude is a distinct cognitive facet.

    “Widespread use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) in L2 studies of individual differences implicitly assumes that L2 aptitude is a distinct cognitive facet.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most studies have found that the MLAT is the strongest single predictor of L2 achievement, even when L1 variables were also being examined.

    “Even so, most studies have found that the MLAT is the strongest single predictor of L2 achievement, even when L1 variables were also being examined.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Administering the MLAT (or another L2 aptitude measure) is more time-efficient than administering a full battery of L1 measures.

    “Clearly, it is more timeefficient to administer the MLAT (or another L2 aptitude measure) than a full battery of L1 measures.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The WRMT Basic Skills Cluster and the TOWRE are brief but highly valid measures of L1 word decoding.

    “The WRMT Basic Skills Cluster (less than 5 minutes) and the TOWRE (2 minutes) are brief but highly valid measures of L1 word decoding.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students with stronger reading ability in their L1 are more likely to have stronger metalinguistic ability than their peers with lower levels of literacy.

    “Students with stronger reading ability in their L1 are more likely to have stronger metalinguistic ability than their peers with lower levels of literacy, and also to have read more extensively, which also improves other literacy-related skills, for example, vocabulary, grammar, and declarative knowledge.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students with stronger L1 reading ability are more likely to have read more extensively, which improves other literacy-related skills such as vocabulary, grammar, and declarative knowledge.

    “Students with stronger reading ability in their L1 are more likely to have stronger metalinguistic ability than their peers with lower levels of literacy, and also to have read more extensively, which also improves other literacy-related skills, for example, vocabulary, grammar, and declarative knowledge.”
6 of 6

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Incorrect mediated-effect percentage for word decoding and Year 2 listening

    Minor

    The indirect effect of .111 is 32.0% of the total effect of .347, not 32.9%.

    Reported 32.9 · recomputed 31.988473

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Ehrman, 1998, The Modern Language Aptitude Test for predicting learning success and advising students, Applied Language Learning, 9, 31
  2. 2007, Stanford Achievement Test 10
  3. Skehan, 1998, A cognitive approach to foreign language learning
  4. Hunt, 1929, Language Aptitude Test
  5. Fenson, 2007, Users Guide and Technical Manual
  6. Woodcock, 1998, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-R (WRMT-R)
  7. Li, 2017, Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors, 41
  8. Luria, 1928, Luria-Orleans Modern Language Prognosis Test
  9. Woodcock, 2001, Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement, Tests of Cognitive Abilities
  10. Skehan, 1988, A comparison of first and foreign language ability, 8
  11. Wagner, 1999, CTOPP-2: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
  12. Bloom, 1978, Language development and language disorders
  13. Carroll, 1962, Training and research in education, 87
  14. Woodcock, 2004, Batería-III Woodcock-Muñoz

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sparks, R. L., & Dale, P. S.
Affiliations
  • Mount St. Joseph University (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
Corresponding author
Sparks, Richard L.
ORCID
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2023-03-02
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
1345-1369
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
DOI
10.1017/s0272263123000037
OpenAlex
W4322769957
Semantic Scholar
decc011b100327c045d5f72fb34bdbcf9ecdef31
Cited by
20
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
13.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Second Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
Modern Language Aptitude Test, mediation, high school students

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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