| Title |
The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristopher Kyle, Scott Crossley, Cynthia Berger |
| Abstract |
This study introduces the second release of the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication (TAALES 2.0), a freely available and easy-to-use text analysis tool. TAALES 2.0 is housed on a user's hard drive (allowing for secure data processing) and is available on most operating systems (Windows, Mac, and Linux). TAALES 2.0 adds 316 indices to the original tool. These indices are related to word frequency, word range, n-gram frequency, n-gram range, n-gram strength of association, contextual distinctiveness, word recognition norms, semantic network, and word neighbors. In this study, we validated TAALES 2.0 by investigating whether its indices could be used to model both holistic scores of lexical proficiency in free writes and word choice scores in narrative essays. The results indicated that the TAALES 2.0 indices could be used to explain 58% of the variance in lexical proficiency scores and 32% of the variance in word-choice scores. Newly added TAALES 2.0 indices, including those related to n-gram association strength, word neighborhood, and word recognition norms, featured heavily in these predictor models, suggesting that TAALES 2.0 represents a substantial upgrade. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Austria | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 170 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 19% |
| Unknown | 55 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 53 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 11 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 61 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,672,485
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#451
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,983
of 324,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#13
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.