The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing Theories of Language Learning Strategies: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Abstract
This study compared classification theories of language learning strategies. Results from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the data measured by the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning and collected from 517 college EFL learners indicated that of the strategy theories examined, Oxford's 6–factor strategy taxonomy is the most consistent with learners’ strategy use, although this model did not produce a fully adequate fit to the data. The findings suggest that other possible approaches to strategy classification should be considered. These approaches include (a) differentiating strategies for using a language (“language use strategies”) from strategies for learning it (“language learning strategies”), (b) recognizing the importance of the learning environment, (c) slightly modifying the prevalent strategy classification theories by reclassifying particular strategies, (d) ensuring that the language skills are obvious in each strategy item, and (e) creating a task–based strategy inventory. This study also illustrates how CFA can be applied to the comparison of current strategy theories.
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
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,023
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,442
EQS : structural equations program manual
Bentler, P. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,669
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Clogg, C. C., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1995) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2580595 · Cited by 8,211
Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know
Horwitz, E. K., & Oxford, R. (1991) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329849 · Cited by 5,941
Self-citationPractical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
The Study of Second Language Acquisition
Brown, C., & Ellis, R. (1996) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329065 · Cited by 4,199
Cited by
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY INSTRUCTION: CURRENT ISSUES AND RESEARCH
Chamot, A. U. (2005) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190505000061 · Cited by 722
A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies
TENG, L. S., & ZHANG, L. J. (2016) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12339 · Cited by 345
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. L.
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 368-383
- ISSN
- 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4781
- OpenAlex
- W2151412647
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 49.89
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Theories of Language Learning Strategies: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1540-4781.00155
- The paper
- Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing Theories of Language Learning Strategies: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The Modern Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155
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.