The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing Research
Abstract
Because a literature review revealed that the descriptions of measures of linguistic accuracy in research on second language writing are often inadequate and their reliabilities often not reported, I completed an empirical study comparing 3 measures. The study used a holistic scale, error‐free T‐units, and an error classification system on the essays of English as a second language (ESL) students. I present detailed discussion of how each measure was implemented, give intra‐ and interrater reliabilities and discuss why disagreements arose within a rater and between raters. The study will provide others doing research in the area of L2 writing with a comprehensive description that will help them select and use a measure of linguistic accuracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Planning and Interlanguage Variation
Crookes, G. (1989) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100008391 · Cited by 431
Cited by
Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections
Storch, N. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 · Cited by 1,052
Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amp048 · Cited by 863
Ferris, D. R. (2004) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 · Cited by 679
Plonsky (2013) · doi:10.1017/s0272263113000399 · Cited by 347
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 · Cited by 275
The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate
Polio, C. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 · Cited by 209
Self-citationTesting the viability of ChatGPT as a companion in L2 writing accuracy assessment
Mizumoto, A., Shintani, N., Sasaki, M., & Teng, M. F. (2024) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100116 · Cited by 104
Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback
Cotos, E. (2011) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459 · Cited by 95
Wei, P., Wang, X., & Dong, H. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991 · Cited by 89
Dynamic Development in Speaking Versus Writing in Identical Twins
Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12107 · Cited by 68
The assessment of cross-cultural experience: measuring awareness through critical text analysis
Ingulsrud, J. E., Kai, K., Kadowaki, S., Kurobane, S., & Shiobara, M. (2002) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/s0147-1767(02)00030-5 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Polio, C. G.
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101-143
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W2102113429
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 51.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
