ArticleMemory & cognition2023
Proficiency versus lexical processing efficiency as a measure of L2 lexical quality: Individual differences in word-frequency effects in L2 visual word recognition.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The anatomical basis of morpho-syntactic computation reflected in gray matter volume and pattern of the inferior frontal gyrus.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- CLAP: A battery of measures to estimate language proficiency in native Chinese speakers.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Lexical Representations of the Native and Second Languages During L2 Word Reading in Chinese-English Bilinguals.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated Korean-English second language (L2) speakers' recognition of high- and low-frequency English words and compared two individual difference measures in their role of representing lexical quality in L2: cloze test scores and inverse efficiency scores (IES; response latency corrected for the amount of errors committed), obtained from lexical decision on a separate set of words. Cloze test scores aimed to assess general L2 proficiency, whereas IES was purported to measure lexical processing efficiency. 109 adult Korean-English L2 speakers participated in the study. Results showed significant main effects of word frequency, cloze test scores, and IES on lexical decision times, replicating previous findings and confirming the predictions of the lexical quality hypothesis. Crucially, IES was revealed to be a better measure of individual differences in L2 lexical quality than were cloze test scores. These findings suggest that lexical quality (which can be operationalized in terms of online lexical processing efficiency) comprises a distinct subdomain of language skills on its own, which cannot be measured in full using conventional language proficiency tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37707723What 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.