TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect-Driven Sample Sizes in Second Language Instructed Vocabulary Acquisition Research
AU - Nicklin, Christopher
AU - Vitta, Joseph P.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge Joy Ebgert, Luke Plonsky, and Ali H. Al?Hoorie for their review of the journal selection process. The authors also thank Marc Brysbaert, Garrett DeOrio, Dani?l Lakens, Erin Maer, Stuart McLean, and Reza Norouzian for their valuable assistance with this project.
Publisher Copyright:
© National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - The present study involved the analysis of 81 second language instructed vocabulary acquisition (L2 IVA) studies over 2 phases. In Phase I, we categorized and coded the effect sizes of the studies. Observing that the basic between- and within-subject design dichotomy lacked the sensitivity to capture the heterogeneity of observed effects, we employed a more granular approach. In both between- and within-subject designs, treatment versus comparison contrasts best represented comparisons of most interest in L2 IVA experiments, with median effect sizes (g) of.62 (between-subject) and.25 (counterbalanced within-subject). In Phase II, the aggregated effect sizes observed in Phase I were utilized in a priori power simulations to suggest approximate sample sizes for common L2 IVA analyses. For conservatively powered between-subject designs, the simulations suggested sample sizes ranging from 292 to 492 participants. Counterbalanced within-subject designs required 95 to 203 subjects depending on the assumed correlation between the repeated measures. The overarching implication of these simulations suggests that future L2 IVA experiments require larger samples that reference effect sizes from previous research, and we offer 3 potential solutions to the problem of obtaining larger samples.
AB - The present study involved the analysis of 81 second language instructed vocabulary acquisition (L2 IVA) studies over 2 phases. In Phase I, we categorized and coded the effect sizes of the studies. Observing that the basic between- and within-subject design dichotomy lacked the sensitivity to capture the heterogeneity of observed effects, we employed a more granular approach. In both between- and within-subject designs, treatment versus comparison contrasts best represented comparisons of most interest in L2 IVA experiments, with median effect sizes (g) of.62 (between-subject) and.25 (counterbalanced within-subject). In Phase II, the aggregated effect sizes observed in Phase I were utilized in a priori power simulations to suggest approximate sample sizes for common L2 IVA analyses. For conservatively powered between-subject designs, the simulations suggested sample sizes ranging from 292 to 492 participants. Counterbalanced within-subject designs required 95 to 203 subjects depending on the assumed correlation between the repeated measures. The overarching implication of these simulations suggests that future L2 IVA experiments require larger samples that reference effect sizes from previous research, and we offer 3 potential solutions to the problem of obtaining larger samples.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100340197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100340197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/modl.12692
DO - 10.1111/modl.12692
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85100340197
SN - 0026-7902
VL - 105
SP - 218
EP - 236
JO - Modern Language Journal
JF - Modern Language Journal
IS - 1
ER -