ArticleBehavior research methods2024
LexArabic: A receptive vocabulary size test to estimate Arabic proficiency.
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 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.
- 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
- LexKO: A quick, reliable lexical test of Korean language proficiency.Behavior research methods · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arabic is understudied in second-language research (L2) and lacks rapid and adequate tools for measuring proficiency. Drawing inspiration from LexTALE and its extensions, this study created and validated a quick receptive vocabulary size test to estimate L2 Arabic proficiency. In Experiment 1, the initial version of LexArabic was designed and evaluated with 192 L1 and L2 speakers. Item analysis using point-biserial correlations and item response theory (IRT) was conducted to refine the test, resulting in a final version with 90 items (60 words, 30 nonwords). Experiment 2 assessed LexArabic reliability, validity, and accuracy using a new group of 260 L1 and L2 speakers. The validity of LexArabic was evaluated through objective tasks (a general Arabic proficiency test, L1 to L2 translation task, L2 to L1 translation task) as well as subjective tasks (self-rated proficiency). Results showed that LexArabic demonstrated good reliability (α > 90), validity (correlation with two objective tasks and one subjective task), as well as accuracy (AUC value = .88). The introduction of LexArabic has the potential to facilitate experimental research on both L1 and L2 Arabic speakers and contributes to the development of standardized L2 proficiency assessment across languages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37964176What 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.