Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests

Vivienne Rogers · Paul M. Meara · Thomas Barnett-Legh · Clare Curry

98 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the European Second Language Association

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism Cognitive Abilities and Testing

Abstract

This study assesses the reliability1 of the LLAMA aptitude tests (Meara, 2005). The LLAMA tests were designed as shorter, free, language-neutral tests loosely based on the MLAT tests (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). They contain four sub-components: vocabulary acquisition, sound recognition, sound-symbol correspondence and grammatical inferencing. Granena (2013) and Rogers et al. (2016) provided initial results regarding factors which might influence LLAMA test scores. This paper develops this previous work by examining some of issues raised with a larger cohort and focuses on the following research questions. 1. Are the LLAMA tests language neutral?2. What is the effect of bilingualism on LLAMA test scores?3. What is the effect of age on LLAMA test scores?4. How much variance can background factors account for in the LLAMA test results? Data were collected from 240 participants aged 10–75 for RQ1–3. We found no significant differences in terms of language background (RQ1) but instructed second language learners significantly outperformed monolinguals (RQ2). For RQ3 we found that the younger groups were outperformed by all the other groups. For RQ4, we investigated how much variance in LLAMA test results six individual background factors could explain. We combined data from Rogers et al. (2016) and this study giving 404 participants in total. Using a multiple regression analysis, we found that prior L2 instruction predicted more of the variance (6%) than any other factor. We suggest that when using the LLAMA tests, researchers should consider controlling for language learning experience. This study scrutinises the components of the LLAMA tests with a large set of data. We conclude that the results are robust across a range of individual differences but suggest that different norms may be needed for younger age groups and those who have received prior L2 instruction.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 98 citations exist upstream.

References

2000THE ROBUSTNESS OF CRITICAL PERIOD EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 1989What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?2009Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition 2003Individual Differences in Second Language Learning 2005Bilingualism, Biliteracy, and Learning to Read: Interactions Among Languages and Writing Systems 2003Dynamic testing: the nature and measurement of learning potential 2008THE ROBUSTNESS OF APTITUDE EFFECTS IN NEAR-NATIVE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 1985Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Ed. by Karl C. Diller Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1981. Pp. 218. $15.95.

Cited by

2019Optimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology 2019Learning vocabulary with the support of sustained exposure to captioned video: do proficiency and aptitude make a difference?2023Examining the relationship between English as a foreign language learners' cognitive abilities and L2 grit in predicting their writing performance 2018STATISTICAL SENSITIVITY, COGNITIVE APTITUDES, AND PROCESSING OF COLLOCATIONS

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.