TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating evidence for the reliability and validity of lexical diversity indices in L2 oral task responses
AU - Kyle, Kristopher
AU - Sung, Hakyung
AU - Eguchi, Masaki
AU - Zenker, Fred
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2024/3/30
Y1 - 2024/3/30
N2 - Although lexical diversity is often used as a measure of productive proficiency (e.g., as an aspect of lexical complexity) in SLA studies involving oral tasks, relatively little research has been conducted to support the reliability and/or validity of these indices in spoken contexts. Furthermore, SLA researchers commonly use indices of lexical diversity such as Root TTR (Guiraud's index) and D (vocd-D and HD-D) that have been preliminarily shown to lack reliability in spoken L2 contexts and/or have been consistently shown to lack reliability in written L2 contexts. In this study, we empirically evaluate lexical diversity indices with respect to two aspects of reliability (text-length independence and across-task stability) and one aspect of validity (relationship with proficiency scores). The results indicated that neither Root TTR nor D is reliable across different text lengths. However, support for the reliability and validity of optimized versions of MATTR and MTLD was found.
AB - Although lexical diversity is often used as a measure of productive proficiency (e.g., as an aspect of lexical complexity) in SLA studies involving oral tasks, relatively little research has been conducted to support the reliability and/or validity of these indices in spoken contexts. Furthermore, SLA researchers commonly use indices of lexical diversity such as Root TTR (Guiraud's index) and D (vocd-D and HD-D) that have been preliminarily shown to lack reliability in spoken L2 contexts and/or have been consistently shown to lack reliability in written L2 contexts. In this study, we empirically evaluate lexical diversity indices with respect to two aspects of reliability (text-length independence and across-task stability) and one aspect of validity (relationship with proficiency scores). The results indicated that neither Root TTR nor D is reliable across different text lengths. However, support for the reliability and validity of optimized versions of MATTR and MTLD was found.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85170080239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85170080239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0272263123000402
DO - 10.1017/S0272263123000402
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85170080239
SN - 0272-2631
VL - 46
SP - 278
EP - 299
JO - Studies in Second Language Acquisition
JF - Studies in Second Language Acquisition
IS - 1
ER -