Cited by 37Computational and Text Analysis MethodsSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMental Health via Writing

Performing Multilingual Analysis With Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 (LIWC2015). An Equivalence Study of Four Languages

Open access
Dudău, Diana Paula, Sava, Florin Alin·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Today, there is a range of computer-aided techniques to convert text into data. However, they convey not only strengths but also vulnerabilities compared to traditional content analysis. One of the challenges that have gained increasing attention is performing automatic language analysis to make sound inferences in a multilingual assessment setting. The current study is the first to test the equivalence of multiple versions of one of the most appealing and widely used lexicon-based tools worldwide, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 (LIWC2015). For this purpose, we employed supervised learning in a classification problem and computed Pearson's correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients on a large corpus of parallel texts in English, Dutch, Brazilian Portuguese, and Romanian. Our findings suggested that LIWC2015 is a valuable tool for multilingual analysis, but within-language standardization is needed when the aim is to analyze texts sourced from different languages.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.570568

Cites

43 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) tool uses more than 100 psychological dimensions to analyze word use, reflecting distinct language variations among different groups in specific genres and languages.

    “The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) tool exemplifies how automated text analysis can use more than 100 psychological dimensions to analyze word use, reflecting distinct language variations among different groups in specific genres and languages [Goldstein-Stewart et al., 2009;Pennebaker et al., 2015;Dudău and Sava, 2021].”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Dudău and Sava, 2021

    The Introduction describes LIWC2015 as an automated word-counting tool with categories that include psychological constructs, and the Discussion reports differences among the languages studied. But the Introduction says it has approximately 90 categories in total—not more than 100 psychological dimensions—and the cited passages do not establish the claim about variations among groups in specific genres. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. de Castilho A. T. (2009). Portuguese, in Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, eds Brown K. Ogilvie S. (Oxford, UK: Elsevier), 883– 885.
  2. Shapiro G. Markoff J. (1997). A matter of definition, in Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences From Texts and Transcripts, eds Roberts C. W. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 9– 31. 10.4324/9781003064060-1 · DOI
  3. Simpson M. (2009). Dutch, in Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, eds Brown K. Ogilvie S. (Oxford, UK: Elsevier), 307– 311.
  4. Swan M. (2009). English in the Present Day, in Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, eds Brown K. Ogilvie S. (Oxford, UK: Elsevier), 327– 334.
  5. van Wissen L. Boot P. (2017). An electronic translation of the LIWC Dictionary into Dutch, in Electronic lexicography in the 21st century: Proceedings of eLex 2017 conference (Brno: Lexical Computing), 703– 715. Available online at: https://elex.link/elex2017/proceedings/eLex_2017_Proceedings.pdf
  6. Whitlam J. (2011). Modern Brazilian Portuguese Grammar: A Practical Guide. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203843925 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dudău, D. P., & Sava, F. A.
Affiliations
West University of Timişoara (RO)
Corresponding author
Sava, Florin Alin
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-07-12
Volume
12
Pages
570568-570568
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3180941500
Cited by
36
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
13.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministerul Educaței și Cercetării Științifice
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
multilingual text analysis, parallel corpus, English language, Dutch language, Brazilian Portuguese, Romanian language, text classification, language standardization

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