ArticleBehavior research methods2024
LexCHI: A quick lexical test for estimating language proficiency in Chinese.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- C-VLT: A reliable Chinese Vocabulary Levels Test for primary and secondary school learners.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Semantic Radical Consistency in Incidental Chinese Vocabulary Learning: A Comparison of Native Readers and Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) Learners.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Effect of Semantic Radical Deformation on Abstract Semantic Radical Identity Representations: A Comparative Study of L1 speakers and L2 Learners.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- CLAP: A battery of measures to estimate language proficiency in native Chinese speakers.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Aging Reduces the Efficiency of Parafoveal Lexical Activation During Chinese Sentence Reading.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- One test, many tongues: Surveying language proficiency across the globe.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- ClozCHI: A cloze test for measuring L2 Chinese proficiency from novice to advanced levels.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- LexKO: A quick, reliable lexical test of Korean language proficiency.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Dictation and vocabulary knowledge tests for adult native Chinese readers.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Bilingual language control during single-language production: does relocation to a new linguistic environment change it?Royal Society open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A prominent methodological issue in cognitive research on bilingualism is the lack of consistency in measuring second language (L2) proficiency. To reduce the inconsistency in L2 proficiency measurements, brief and valid vocabulary tests have been developed as an objective measure of proficiency in a variety of languages (e.g., English, French, Spanish). Here, we present LexCHI, a valid lexical test to measure Chinese proficiency. This freely available short test consists of 60 two-character items presented in simplified Chinese. Although it only takes a few minutes to complete LexCHI, the LexCHI scores in two studies correlated significantly with L2 participants' performance in a translation task and a cloze test. We believe that LexCHI is a useful tool for researchers who need to objectively measure Chinese proficiency as part of their investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.