Scoring Yes–No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches

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.

[1]  Paul Meara,et al.  The effect of cognates on the applicability of YES/NO vocabulary tests , 1994 .

[2]  D E Francke The written word. , 1979, American journal of hospital pharmacy.

[3]  Sheridan Warner Baker,et al.  The Written Word. , 1948, American journal of public health and the nation's health.

[4]  Henrik Gyllstad,et al.  Review of Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 2011 .

[5]  Michael Harrington,et al.  The Yes/No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge , 2006 .

[6]  J. Grainger,et al.  Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: a megastudy. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[8]  Paul Nation,et al.  Teaching and learning vocabulary , 1994 .

[9]  June Eyckmans,et al.  Examining the Yes/No vocabulary test: some methodological issues in theory and practice , 2001 .

[10]  N. Schmitt Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual , 2010 .

[11]  P. Meara,et al.  An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests , 1987 .

[12]  L. Cameron Measuring vocabulary size in English as an additional language , 2002 .

[13]  Paul Meara,et al.  Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: correction for guessing and response style , 2002 .

[14]  Michael Harrington,et al.  The on-line Yes/No test as a placement tool , 2009 .

[15]  B. Underwood,et al.  A recognition test of vocabulary using signal-detection measures, and some correlates of word and nonword recognition. , 1977 .

[16]  Frank Boers,et al.  Learners’ response behaviour in Yes/No Vocabulary Tests , 2007 .

[17]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge , 1982 .

[18]  Paul Meara The complexities of simple vocabulary tests , 1994 .

[19]  B. Laufer,et al.  Testing Vocabulary Knowledge: Size, Strength, and Computer Adaptiveness. , 2004 .

[20]  Paul Meara Some notes on the Eurocentres vocabulary tests. , 1990 .

[21]  Paul Meara,et al.  Vocabulary Size as a Placement Indicator. , 1988 .