Assessing Vocabulary by John Read

By J. Read. 2000

437 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/37af25e56742c1d50271a2977c6f07ee200a1fbe

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test (2010, methodology): “One vocabulary size test that has received attention for a number of years has been the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test (Meara and Buxton, 1987; Meara and Jones, 1990; see Read, 2000, pp. 126–132 for a detailed description and evaluation of the test).”
Research into practice: Vocabulary (2011, neutral): “Read (2000) has commented on this problem.”
vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation (2007, background): “Often used interchangeably with the terms lexical variation (Read, 2000), lexical richness (Tweedie and Baayen, 1998), and verifiable, and objective score of lexical deployment.”
Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom (2019, background): “Though there are numerous ways to assess lexical complexity, it is commonly treated as a multidimensional construct, consisting of lexical sophistication, variation, density, and vocabulary errors (Read, 2000).”
Predicting L2 reading proficiency with modalities of vocabulary knowledge: A bootstrapping approach (2020, positive): “Email: stumc93@gmail.com Vocabulary has long been seen as a multi-componential or multidimensional construct (e.g., Henriksen, 1999; Hunston, Francis, & Manning, 1997; Laufer & Goldstein, 2004; Read, 2000; Schmitt, 2014).”
The many faces of study abroad: an update on the research on L2 gains emerged during a study abroad experience (2011, background): “Despite the clear superiority of the SA context over the AH context with regard to vocabulary learning, there should be more research with the multiple tests available to measure vocabulary acquisition (for an extensive review of vocabulary tests, see Read, 2000).”
Size and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge: What the Research Shows (2014, background): “As such, alternative conceptualizations such as the developmental approach outlined by Read (2000) and Henriksen’s (1999) three-dimension description of lexical knowledge will not be covered because I could find no studies that 915 Language Learning 64:4, December 2014, pp. 913–951 used them to…”
Assessing Lexical Proficiency Using Analytic Ratings: A Case for Collocation Accuracy (2014, background): “…the understanding that the best way to investigate the lexicon is through its use, especially when informants are unaware that the lexicon is the focus of the at A rizona State U niversity on N ovem ber 7, 2014 http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ D ow nloaded from assessment (Read 2000; Nation 2007).”
The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance (2012, background): “This has been shown to be distinct from lexical diversity (Read, 2000), and from syntactic complexity, and is measured here by a version of Meara’s Lambda index (Bell, 2003; Meara and Bell, 2001), which provides an estimate of extent of use of rarer words.”
Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test (2001, background): “(An extended discussion of the implications of vocabulary size for vocabulary pedagogy is beyond the scope of this article; for details, see Coady and Huckin, 1997; Schmitt and McCarthy, 1997; Read, 2000; Schmitt, 2000; and Nation, 2001.)”
Toward a Model of Motivated Vocabulary Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach (2008, background): “In terms of vocabulary knowledge, knowing a word means more than just being able to answer a multiple-choice meaning test item correctly (Read, 2000), and so combining measures of both size and depth of knowledge allows the model to draw upon a better estimate of the learners’ true lexical…”
The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners' Oral Narratives. (2012, methodology): “Following Read (2000), we conceptualize lexical richness as a multidimensional feature of a learner’s language use that consists of the following four interrelated components: lexical density, lexical sophistication, lexical variation, and number of errors in vocabulary use.”
Capturing the Diversity in Lexical Diversity. (2013, background): “However, many researchers in the past few years have followed the lead of Engber (1995) and Read (2000) in using the term lexical richness as a superordinate term that covers practically all lexical constructs and their associated measures—including but not limited to lexical diversity and lexical…”
Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity (2002, methodology): “The levels of rs in the present results do, nevertheless, suggest that LDV is only one of many factors that contribute to writing pro ciency (compare Read, 2000: 208–09), and they also suggest that LDV is not as good a predictor of writing quality as is simply the length of the text (i.e., the…”
The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading (2018, background): “Vocabulary knowledge is generally assumed to start as primarily receptive in nature and only later be of sufficient quality to facilitate productive word use (Read, 2000).”