The High-Level Language Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB)

doi:10.1017/9781009076463.006

4 - The High-Level Language Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB)

Development, Validation, and Use

from Part I - Revisiting and Refining Aptitude Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2023

Meredith Hughes ,

Ewa Golonka ,

Alison Tseng and

Susan Campbell

Edited by

Zhisheng (Edward) Wen ,

Peter Skehan and

Richard L. Sparks

Show author details

Zhisheng (Edward) Wen: Affiliation:
Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Peter Skehan: Affiliation:
Institute of Education, University of London
Richard L. Sparks: Affiliation:
Mount St Joseph University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The High-Level Language Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB) measures the cognitive and perceptual abilities hypothesized to be important for adults to reach advanced levels of foreign language proficiency (Doughty, 2019; Doughty et al., 2010; Linck et al., 2013). This chapter will provide a historical overview of the Hi-LAB and its use, starting from the selection of constructs to measure, development of the battery, exploration of the battery’s measurement properties, and its use today. Over 15 years of work have been dedicated to selecting, refining, and validating the measures of the battery. We will explore how University of Maryland researchers as well as those of wider academia have used the battery to explore aspects of language aptitude, most notably, perhaps, the potential for Hi-LAB to inform language aptitude-by-treatment interventions. Potential directions for future work will also be discussed, pointing ahead to how the battery can continue to provide valuable aptitude information for language learning across populations, including language learners themselves, language instructors, academic researchers, and organizations who are interested in training personnel in new languages.

Keywords

language aptitude Hi-LAB aptitude-by-treatment reliability validity

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Language Aptitude Theory and Practice , pp. 73 - 93

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009076463.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Sionov, A. (2006). The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 185–209.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. B. (1965). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Training, Research, and Education. New York: Wiley, pp. 87–136.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (eds.), Language Aptitude Reconsidered. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Republished in 2002 at Rockville, MD: Language Learning and Testing Foundation.Google Scholar

Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. (2019). Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning, 69(S1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12322 Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J., Campbell, S. G., Mislevy, M. A., Bunting, M. F., Bowles, A. R., & Koeth, J. T. (2010, December). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 10–31).Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J., Campbell, S. G., Mislevy, M., Kenyon, D., & Fidelman, C. (2008). TTO 2105 Technical Report E.1.1: Research Design (Technical Report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar

Doughty, C., Campbell, S. G., Bunting, M. F., Bowles, A. R., & Haarmann, H. (2007). Final M.4 Deliverable: The development of the High-Level Language Aptitude Battery (Technical Report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview. Themes in SLA research. AILA Review, 19(1), 3–17.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive aptitude and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000256 Google Scholar

Huber, D. E., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2003). Persistence and accommodation in short-term priming and other perceptual paradigms: Temporal segregation through synaptic depression. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(3), 403–430.Google Scholar

Jackson, S. J., Tseng, A. M., Tare, M., & Hughes, M. M. (2017). The Role of Language Aptitude and Language Learning Background at FSI: Validity of the MLAT and Hi-LAB as Measures of Language Aptitude (Technical Report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar

Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., et al. (2012). Hi-LAB Identified Successful High-Proficiency Language Learners: Results of the Group Discrimination Study (Technical Report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar

Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., et al. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63(3), 530–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12011 Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 377–393.Google Scholar

Meara, P. M. (2005). LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Swansea, UK: Lognostics.Google Scholar

Mislevy, M. A., Linck, J. A., Campbell, S. G., et al. (2010). Predicting High-Level Foreign Language Learning: A New Aptitude Battery Meets Reliability Standard for Personnel Selection Tests (Technical Report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar

Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y. Y., & Wong, P. C. M. (2011). Learning novel phonological contrasts depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 461–472.Google Scholar

Petersen, C. R., & Al-Haik, A. R. (1976). The development of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447603600216 Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830101700405 Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar

Tseng, A., Greiner, J., Levitas, D., et al. (2015). The Hi-LAB Longitudinal Predictive Validity Study: Second Year Accomplishments and Next Steps (Technical Report). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar

Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Aptitude–treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive Periods, Language Aptitude, and Ultimate L2 Attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 273–292.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive individual differences as predictor of improvement and awareness under implicit and explicit feedback conditions. The Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12587 Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.