The LexTALE as a measure of L2 global proficiency: A cautionary tale based on a partial replication of Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012)

Eloi Puig-Mayenco*, Adel Chaouch-Orozco, Hong Liu, Fernando Martín-Villena

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The role of proficiency is widely discussed in multilingual language acquisition research, and yet, there is little consensus as to how one should operationalize it in our empirical investigations. The present study assesses the validity of the LexTALE (Lemhöfer & Broersma, 2012) as a ‘quick and valid’ measure of global proficiency. We first provide an overview review of how the LexTALE has been used since its publication, showing that although the test has gained popularity in the last few years, its reliability has not been thoroughly examined. Thus, herein we present results of a partial replication of Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012), where we empirically assess the validity of the LexTALE as a measure of L2 global proficiency in two groups of learners of English with various degrees of proficiency (L1 Spanish, n = 288; L1 Chinese, n = 266). Results indicate that if we are to use LexTALE in our investigations, we should do so with caution as the analyses show that irrespective of the L1 and level of proficiency of the targeted participants, its reliability as a measure of global proficiency is under question evidenced by the low and moderate correlations found with a standardised measure of global proficiency.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)299-314
Number of pages16
JournalLinguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Jun 2023

Keywords

  • conceptual replication
  • L2 global proficiency
  • LexTALE
  • vocabulary size

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The LexTALE as a measure of L2 global proficiency: A cautionary tale based on a partial replication of Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this