SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2022 / Volume: 13 Issue: 4

Validation of the Vocabulary Size Test

Mustafa Gökcan(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2284-9967
Derya Çobanoğlu Aktan(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-8292-3815
Pages
—
Publication Date
2022-12-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

DIF results indicated that 10 items exhibited large DIF (seven favoring males and three favoring females).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Vocabulary Size Test (VST) is one of the most commonly used assessment tools for measuring English vocabulary size in the field of language testing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This validation study has attempted to reveal evidence for construct validity for the VST, and to this end, item response theory (IRT) analyses were performed based on the three-parameter logistic model (3PLM).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:DIF results indicated that 10 items exhibited large DIF (seven favoring males and three favoring females).
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Language testing · vocabulary assessment · Vocabulary Size Test

Abstract

The Vocabulary Size Test (VST) is one of the most commonly used assessment tools for measuring English vocabulary size in the field of language testing. Despite its common usage, only a limited number of validity and reliability studies have been carried out with regard to the VST. Besides, they were mostly predicated on the Rasch model. This validation study has attempted to reveal evidence for construct validity for the VST, and to this end, item response theory (IRT) analyses were performed based on the three-parameter logistic model (3PLM). The assumptions of IRT were investigated via factor analysis (unidimensionality) and Yen’s Q3 statistic (local independence). Detailed differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted with Mantel-Haenszel, Lord's chi-square test, and Logistic regression methods to add evidence based on internal structure and to check fairness as a lack of measurement bias. The validation results with IRT showed that the 3PLM fitted the data better than the one- and the two-parameter logistic models. DIF results indicated that 10 items exhibited large DIF (seven favoring males and three favoring females). The results further showed that the guessing effect was not negligible for the VST.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gökcan, M., Aktan, D. Ç. (2022). Validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Volume: 13 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1144808

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Ackerman, T. A. (1987, April). The robustness of LOGIST and BILOG IRT estimation programs to violations of local independence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC.
  2. Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212151
  3. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
  4. Aryadoust, V., Ng, L. Y., & Sayama, H. (2021). A comprehensive review of Rasch measurement in language assessment: Recommendations and guidelines for research. Language Testing, 38(1), 6–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220927487
  5. Baker, F. (2001). The basics of Item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
  6. Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language Testing, 27(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340194
  7. Birnbaum A. (1968) Some Latent Trait Models, In Lord F.M., & Novick M.R. (eds.), Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Addison-Wesley.
  8. Camilli, G. (1994). Origin of the Scaling Constant d = 1.7 in Item Response Theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19(3), 293-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165298
  9. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree Test for The Number of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  10. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  11. Cho, S.-J., Li, F., & Bandalos, D. (2009). Accuracy of the Parallel Analysis Procedure With Polychoric Correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332229
  12. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
  13. Çepni, Z. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2021). Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using SIBTEST, MH, LR and IRT Methods. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.988879
  14. Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667268
  15. de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Press.
  16. DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford University Press.
  17. Elgort, I. (2013). Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the vocabulary size test. Language Testing, 30(2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212459028
  18. Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Kluwer-Nijhoff.
  19. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage.
  20. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900204
  21. Hertzman, M. (1936). The effects of the relative difficulty of mental tests on patterns of mental organization. Archives of Psychology, 197.
  22. Holland, P. W. & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 129-145). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Horn, J. L. (1965). A Rationale and Test for The Number of Factors in Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  24. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
  25. Karami, H. (2012). The development and validation of a bilingual version of the vocabulary size test. RELC Journal, 43(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212439359
  26. Kıbrıslıoğlu Uysal, N., & Atalay Kabasakal, K. (2017). The effect of background variables on gender related differential item functioning. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 8(4), 373-390. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.333451
  27. Koyuncu, İ., & Kılıç, A. (2019). The use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: A document analysis. Education and Science, 44(198). http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7665
  28. Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
  29. Li, C. H. (2019). Using a Listening Vocabulary Levels Test to explore the effect of vocabulary knowledge on GEPT listening comprehension performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1648474
  30. Magis, D., Beland, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & De Boeck, P. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.847
  31. McDonald, R. P., & Ahlawat, K. S. (1974). Difficulty factors in binary data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1974.tb00530.x
  32. McNamara, T., & Knoch, U. (2012). The Rasch wars: The emergence of Rasch measurement in language testing. Language Testing, 29(4), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211430367
  33. Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching, 13(3-4), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800008879
  34. Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Maters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692092
  35. Milton, J. (2013). Measuring the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to proficiency in the four skills. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer. (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge, and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (pp. 57-78). Eurosla Monographs Series. https://www.eurosla.org/monographs/EM02/Milton.pdf
  36. Miralpeix, I. & Muñoz, C. (2018). Receptive vocabulary size and its relationship to EFL language skills. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0016
  37. Mizumoto, A., Sasao, Y., & Webb, S. A. (2019). Developing and evaluating a computerized adaptive testing version of the word part levels test. Language Testing, 36(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217725776
  38. Muthén, B., du Toit, S.H.C. & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished technical report. https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075.pdf
  39. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on the general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78(3), 691-692. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/78.3.691
  40. Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13. https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/issues/2007-07_31.7
  41. Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759
  42. Nguyen, L. T. C., & Nation, P. (2011). A bilingual vocabulary size test of English for Vietnamese learners. RELC Journal, 42(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390264
  43. Noreillie, A. S., Kestemont, B., Heylen, K., Desmet, P., & Peters, E. (2018). Vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension at an intermediate level in English and French as foreign languages. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1), 212-231. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.00013.nor
  44. Ockey, G. J., & Choi, I. (2015) Item Response Theory. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1476
  45. Paek, I., & Cole, K. (2020). Using R for item response theory model applications. Routledge.
  46. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press.
  47. Reckase, M. D., Ackerman, T. A., & Carlson, J. E. (1988). Building a unidimensional test using multidimensional items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1988.tb00302.x
  48. Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89976-3
  49. Schmitt, N., Nation, P., & Kremmel, B. (2020). Moving the field of vocabulary assessment forward: The need for more rigorous test development and validation. Language Teaching, 53(1), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000326
  50. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. MaCmillan.
  51. Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975
  52. Stewart, J. (2014). Do multiple-choice options inflate estimates of vocabulary size on the VST? Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.922977
  53. Tran, U. S., & Formann, A. K. (2009). Performance of Parallel Analysis in Retrieving Unidimensionality in the Presence of Binary Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408318761
  54. Uysal, İ., Ertuna, L., Ertaş, F., G. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2019). Performances based on ability estimation of the methods of detecting differential item functioning: A simulation study. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 10(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.534312
  55. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer.
  56. Weng, L.-J., & Cheng, C.-P. (2005). Parallel Analysis with Unidimensional Binary Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(5), 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404273941
  57. Yang, Y., & Xia, Y. (2015). On the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis for ordered categorical data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 756–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0499-2
  58. Yen, W.M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.x
  59. Zhang, X. (2013). The “i don’t know” option in the vocabulary size test. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 790–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.98
  60. Zhang, S., & Zhang, X. (2020). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research,26(4), 696–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913998
  61. Zhao, P., & Ji, X. (2018). Validation of the Mandarin version of the vocabulary size test. RELC Journal, 49(3), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216639761
  62. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832