English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  DetailsSummary

Released
Journal Article

Using the peabody picture vocabulary test in L2 children and adolescents: Effects of L1

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons226869

Goriot,  Claire
Center for Language Studies , External Organizations;
International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons122

McQueen,  James M.
Research Associates, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, External Organizations;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Goriot, C., Van Hout, R., Broersma, M., Lobo, V., McQueen, J. M., & Unsworth, S. (2018). Using the peabody picture vocabulary test in L2 children and adolescents: Effects of L1. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13670050.2018.1494131.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0001-E851-E
Abstract
This study investigated to what extent the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
(PPVT-4) is a reliable tool for measuring vocabulary knowledge of English as
a second language (L2), and to what extent L1 characteristics affect test
outcomes. The PPVT-4 was administered to Dutch pupils in six different
age groups (4-15 years old) who were or were not following an English
educational programme at school. Our first finding was that the PPVT-4
was not a reliable measure for pupils who were correct on maximally 24
items, but it was reliable for pupils who performed better. Second, both
primary-school and secondary-school pupils performed better on items
for which the phonological similarity between the English word and its
Dutch translation was higher. Third, young unexperienced L2 learners’
scores were predicted by Dutch lexical frequency, while older more
experienced pupils’ scores were predicted by English frequency. These
findings indicate that the PPVT may be inappropriate for use with L2
learners with limited L2 proficiency. Furthermore, comparisons of PPVT
scores across learners with different L1s are confounded by effects of L1
frequency and L1-L2 similarity. The PPVT-4 is however a suitable measure
to compare more proficient L2 learners who have the same L1.