Lexical Facility as an Index of L2 Proficiency

  • Michael Harrington


This chapter presents the first of seven studies that evaluate lexical facility as a second language (L2) vocabulary construct. Study 1 examines the sensitivity of the lexical facility measures to differences in three university English populations, and a preuniversity group of L2 English students in a university language program, L2 university students, and first language (L1) university students. The sensitivity of the three measures (vocabulary size, mean recognition speed, and recognition speed consistency) to group differences is examined for each measure individually and as composites. Construct validity is also established by comparing performance across frequency levels.


  1. Beeckmans, R., Eyckmans, J., Janssens, V., Dufranne, M., & Van de Velde, H. (2001). Examining the yes/no vocabulary test: Some methodological issues in theory and practice. Language Testing, 18(3), 235–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cameron, L. (2002). Measuring vocabulary size in English as an additional language. Language Teaching Research, 6(2), 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eyckmans, J. (2004). Learners’ response behavior in Yes/No vocabulary tests. In H. Daller, M. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 59–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6(1), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied PsychoLinguistics, 30(04), 555–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (2001). Passive vocabulary size and speed of meaning recognition: Are they related? EUROSLA Yearbook, 1(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2014). Calculation of effect sizes. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from
  14. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mochida, A., & Harrington, M. (2006). The yes-no test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 26(1), 73–98. doi: 10.1191/0265532206lt321oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moder, K. (2010). Alternatives to F-test in one way ANOVA in case of heterogeneity of variances (a simulation study). Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4), 343–353.Google Scholar
  18. Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. doi:10.1111/lang. 12079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111(1), 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–89. doi: 10.1191/026553201668475857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice and differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 14(3), 369–385. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400010845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 458–483. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ziegler, J. C., & Perry, C. (1998). No more problems in Coltheart’s neighborhood: Resolving neighborhood conflicts in the lexical decision task. Cognition, 68(2), B53–B62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Harrington
    • 1
  1. 1.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations