ReviewBrain sciences2024
A Meta-Analysis of the Reliability of Second Language Listening Tests (1991-2022).
Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
To investigate the reliability of L2 listening tests and explore potential factors affecting the reliability, a reliability generalization (RG) meta-analysis was conducted in the present study. A total number of 122 alpha coefficients of L2 listening tests from 92 published articles were collected and submitted to a linear mixed effects RG analysis. The papers were coded based on a coding scheme consisting of 16 variables classified into three categories: study features, test features, and statistical results. The results showed an average reliability of 0.818 (95% CI: 0.803 to 0.833), with 40% of reliability estimates falling below the lower bound of CI. The presence of publication bias and heterogeneity was found in the reliability of L2 listening tests, indicating that low reliability coefficients were likely omitted from some published studies. In addition, two factors predicting the reliability of L2 listening tests were the number of items and test type (standardized and researcher- or teacher-designed tests). The study also found that reliability is not a moderator of the relationship between L2 listening scores and theoretically relevant constructs. Reliability induction was identified in reporting the reliability of L2 listening tests, too. Implications for researchers and teachers are discussed.
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.