Age of acquisition ratings score better on criterion validity than frequency trajectory or ratings "corrected" for frequency
Age of acquisition ratings score better on criterion validity than frequency trajectory or ratings "corrected" for frequency
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/17470218.2016.1172097
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Brysbaert, Marc
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brysbaert, Marc
从最初关于习得年龄(AOA)对文字处理的影响的研究开始，研究人员通过将他们的AOA评分与其他更客观的儿童识字年龄指标相关联来验证他们的评分。尽管如此，评级仍受到质疑，并提出了替代措施。其中两个是针对幼儿的语言与针对年龄较大的儿童的语言之间的词频差异(频率轨迹)和针对词频进行校正的AOA评级。令人惊讶的是，这些替代测量的标准有效性从未被确立，部分原因是其中一个验证标准(儿童能够说出图片的年龄)受到了质疑。在本研究中，使用了四个数据库，旨在建立英语单词习得的顺序，从最初学习的单词到在中学教育中教授的单词。单词知识的标准包括单词产生，关于单词含义的多项选择题，以及教师关于何时应该在学校课程中教授单词的判断。对于所有数据库，频率轨迹与标准的相关性远低于AOA评级。除一个外，对于所有其他变量的AOA评级来说，情况都是如此。在这些发现的基础上，研究人员应该谨慎地将“改进”变量的无效效应解释为反对真正的AOA效应的证据。
From the very first studies on the effect of age of acquisition (AoA) on word processing, researchers have validated their AoA ratings by correlating them with other, more objective indices of the age at which children know words. Still, the ratings have been questioned, and alternative measures have been proposed. Two of these are differences in word frequency between language directed at young children and language directed at older children (frequency trajectory) and AoA ratings corrected for word frequency. Surprisingly, the criterion validity of these alternative measures has never been established, partly because one of the validation criteria (the age at which children are able to name pictures) has been questioned. In the present study, four databases are used that aimed to establish the order of English word acquisition, going from the very first words learned to words taught in secondary education. The criteria for word knowledge included word production, multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the words, and teacher judgments about when words should be taught in the school curriculum. For all databases, the frequency trajectory correlated substantially less with the criterion than AoA ratings. For all but one, the same was true for AoA ratings "corrected" for other variables. On the basis of these findings, researchers should be cautious interpreting null effects with the "improved" variables as evidence against a genuine AoA effect.