The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scoring Yes–No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches
Abstract
Despite a number of research studies investigating the Yes–No vocabulary test format, one main question remains unanswered: What is the best scoring procedure to adjust for testee overestimation of vocabulary knowledge? Different scoring methodologies have been proposed based on the inclusion and selection of nonwords in the test. However, there is currently no consensus on the best adjustment procedure using these nonwords. Two studies were conducted to examine a new methodology for scoring Yes–No tests based on testees’ response times (RTs) to the words in the test, on the assumption that faster responses would be more certain and accurate whereas more hesitant and inaccurate ones would be reflected in slower RTs. Participants performed a timed Yes–No test and were then interviewed to ascertain their actual vocabulary knowledge. Study 1 explored the viability of this approach and Study 2 examined whether the RT approach presented any advantage over the more traditional nonword approaches. Results showed that there was no clear advantage for any of the approaches under comparison, but their effectiveness depended on factors like the false alarm rate and the size of participants’ overestimation of their lexical knowledge.
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?
No advantage was found for using reaction time or nonwords in scoring yes/no vocabulary tests.
“No advantage was found for any of these approaches and they referred to other factors that could affect the effectiveness of the scoring.”
From The Vocabulary Knowledge of Saudi EFL Tertiary Students (2019) · cites this paper as Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012
Citations
Cites
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608
The Yes/No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge
Mochida, K., & Harrington, M. (2006) · Language Testing · doi:10.1191/0265532206lt321oa · Cited by 173
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Anderson R. C., 1983, Advances in reading/language research: A research annual, 231
- Ayto J., 2006, The Hutchinson dictionary of difficult words
- 10.1177/026553220101800301 · DOI
- 10.1191/1362168802lr103oa · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511667268.006 · DOI
- Green D., 1966, Signal detection theory and psychophysics
- 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.006 · DOI
- 10.1191/0265532202lt229oa · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.12 · DOI
- Lemhöfer K., 2009, Paper presented at AmLab conference
- Meara P., 1990, Foreign language comprehension and production, 103
- Meara P., 1992, EFL vocabulary tests
- Meara P., 1994, Curriculum research: Different disciplines and common goals, 15
- Meara P., 2010, EFL vocabulary tests
- 10.1177/026553228700400202 · DOI
- Meara P., 1988, Applied linguistics in society, 80
- 10.3138/cmlr.50.2.296 · DOI
- Nation I. S. P., 1990, Teaching and learning vocabulary
- 10.1057/9780230293977 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0160-2896(77)90025-3 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats: Issues with guessing and sampling rates
Gyllstad, H., Vilkaitė, L., & Schmitt, N. (2015) · ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/itl.166.2.04gyl · Cited by 164
Self-citationThe Vocabulary Knowledge of Saudi EFL Tertiary Students
Altalhab, S. (2019) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n5p55 · Cited by 12
“Although this type of test seems to be effective at providing a good estimation of vocabulary size, the scoring procedure remains questionable (Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012).”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- Authors
- Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham, UK
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- ORCID
- Schmitt, Norbert
- Venue
- Language Testing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-07-15
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 489-509
- ISSN
- 0265-5322 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0946
- OpenAlex
- W2119520460
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9
- FWCI
- 9.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Testing (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- reaction time (psychology), false alarm rate, reaction time
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