ArticleBilingualism (Cambridge, England)2026
A theoretically driven and empirically grounded calculation for language dominance and degree of multilingualism.
Article in Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Shared Neural Mechanism for Abstract Grammatical Computations across Languages in Bilinguals.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bilingualism research has long been challenged by a lack of a unified approach to quantifying language dominance and degree of multilingualism. While numerous questionnaires (e.g., LHQ, BLP, LEAP‑Q, and LUQ) provide valuable data on language background variables, they lack a standardized formula to compute key measures from it. We introduce two formulas that synthesize critical linguistic variables to efficiently calculate language dominance and a multilingualism score that ranges from perfect monolingualism to native-like proficiency in multiple languages. Validation across two large datasets shows our dominance measure closely aligns with more complex PCA methods while being simpler and more efficient.
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.