A new measure for Thai students’ vocabulary size: the English-Thai version of vocabulary size test

Supika Nirattisai, Thanyapa Palanukulwong

Abstract


 The main objective was to explore the reliability and validity of the bilingual English-Thai version of the vocabulary size test adapted based on Nation and Beglar (2007). The findings indicate that (1) the test is reliable; it produced consistent and stable results, (2) the test is valid; it well measures subjects’ vocabulary size, (3) the words in each level are quite organized; the scores generally decline from the beginning level which is the easiest one (1st 1000 word level) to the highest level which is the most difficult one (14th 1000 word level), and (4) the test result shows that only 14 word levels are not sufficient to access the subjects’ total vocabulary size; the test should contain more word levels. In all, the bilingual English-Thai version of the vocabulary size test is a reliable and valid measure of Thai students’ vocabulary size.


Keywords


Bilingual; vocabulary; vocabulary size test; reliability; validity; Thai students

Full Text:

PDF

References


Beglar, D. 2010. “A Rash-based validation of the vocabulary size test”. Language Testing 27 (1): 101-118.

Gyllstad, H. 2012. “Validating the vocabulary size test”. 9th annual EALTA conference.

Hatcher, L. 1994. A Step-by-Step Approach to using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: The SAS Institute.

Hermann, F. 2003. “Differential effects of reading and memorization of paired associates on vocabulary acquisition in adult learners of English as a second language”. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a second or foreign language 7 (1): 1-16.

Hirsh, D. and P. Nation. 1992. “What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?”. Reading in a Foreign Language 8 (2): 689-696.

Hu, M. and P. Nation. 2000. “Vocabulary density and reading comprehension”. Reading in a Foreign Language 13 (1): 403-430.

Knight, S. 1994. “Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities”. Modern Language Journal 78 (3): 285-299.

Laufer, B. 1986. “Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research”. IRAL 24 (1): 69-75.

Laufer, B. 1998. “The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different?”. Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 255-271.

Meara, P. and B. Buxton. 1987. “An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests”. Language Testing 4: 142-151

Nation, I.S.P. 1983. “Testing and teacher vocabulary”. Guidelines 5: 12-25.

Nation, I.S.P. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Nation, I.S.P. and D. Beglar. 2007. “A vocabulary size test”. The Language Teacher 31 (7).

Nation, P. and P. Meara. 2002. “Vocabulary”. Ed. N. Schmitt. An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. 2010. Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18172/jes.3030

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

© Universidad de La Rioja, 2013

ISSN 1576-6357

EISSN 1695-4300