Cover not available

Article published In: The Assessment of Functional Adequacy in Language Performance: Special issue of the Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 (2022)
Edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder
[TASK 2:1] 2022
► pp. 85–114

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Holistic and analytic assessment of functional adequacy

ORCiD logo with link | University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Published online: 20 June 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21014.pal
Abstract
This study looks at the correlation between functional adequacy (FA), holistically assessed, and analytic linguistic measures, in a corpus of texts written by Italian monolingual and multilingual primary school pupils. Texts were first evaluated using the FA rating scales by Kuiken and Vedder (Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2018). Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 266–285). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), plus one for Coherence & Cohesion from the CEFR (Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). They were then coded for a number of features directly bearing on FA and its subdimensions. Results show correlations between holistic scores and analytic measures, such as those between Content and the number of words or secondary idea units (r = .59 / .65). Others were less strong, yet going in the expected direction, e.g. more ambiguous referential expressions were negatively correlated to Comprehensibility. Correlations were generally stronger for monolingual than for multilingual children.
Article outline
  • Previous research
  • Methodology
  • Data analysis
    • Content
    • Coherence & Cohesion
    • Comprehensibility
  • Results: Correlation analysis
  • Results: Regression models
  • Functional adequacy
    • Content
    • Comprehensibility
    • Coherence & Cohesion – Kuiken and Vedder
    • Coherence & Cohesion – CEFR
  • Summary of findings
  • Implications for TBLT and directions for future research
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2010). Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. European Second Language Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Covington, M., & McFall, J. (2010). Cutting the Gordian knot: The Moving-Average Type–Token Ratio (MATTR). Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2), 94–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415–443. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency – Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (1994). Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing, 11(2), 125–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Durrant, A. (2022). Appropriateness as an aspect of lexical richness: What do quantitative measures tell us about children’s writing? Assessing Writing, 511, 100596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, J., & Bouchet-Valat, M. (2020). Rcmdr: R Commander. [URL]
Fulcher, G. (1996). Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing, 13(2), 208–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Re-examining language testing: A philosophical and social enquiry. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grömping, U. (2006). Relative importance for linear regression in R: The Package relaimpo. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(1), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Variable importance in regression models. WIREs Computational Statistics, 7(2), 137–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, L., & Hsieh, C.-N. (2019). Distinguishing features of young English language learners’ oral performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(2), 180–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1954). Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Schoonen, R., De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., & Florijn, A. (2012). Linguistic competences of learners of Dutch as a second language at the B1 and B2 levels of speaking proficiency of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Language Testing, 29(2), 203–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kersten, K. (2009). Verbal inflections in L2 child narratives. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khushik, G. A., & Huhta, A. (2020). Investigating syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 506–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 266–285). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–100). European Second Language Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lahuerta Martínez, A. C. (2018). Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 351, 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R, 2nd edition. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Y. Y., & Ventura, S. (2017). Lindia. Automated Linear Regression Diagnostic. [URL]
Lindeman, R. H., Merenda, P. F., & Gold, R. Z. (1980). Introduction to bivariate and multivariate analysis. Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallotti, G., Borghetti, C., & Rosi, F. (2021). Insegnare a scrivere nella scuola primaria. Caissa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roessingh, H., Nordstokke, D., & Colp, M. (2019). Unlocking academic literacy in Grade 4: The role of handwriting. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(2), 65–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (2018). Communicative competence. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zenker, F., & Kyle, K. (2021). Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 471, 100505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skar, G. B., Lei, P.-W., Graham, S., Aasen, A. J., Johansen, M. B., & Kvistad, A. H. (2021). Handwriting fluency and the quality of primary grade students’ writing. Reading and Writing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2025. From CAF to CAFFA. In Broadening the Horizon of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 17], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Li, Shaopeng, Zehao Wang & Xianru Ge
2025. Effects of Task Complexity and L2 Proficiency on Functional Adequacy in L2 Writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:2 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Xiaojun & Yui Suzukida
2025. Relationships of Linguistic Complexity and Accuracy to Functional Adequacy Across L2 English Speaking and Writing: Roles of L2 Proficiency and Task Type. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Koizumi, Rie & Yo In'nami
2024. Predicting functional adequacy from complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second-language picture-prompted speaking. System 120 ► pp. 103208 ff. DOI logo
Balboni, Paolo E.
2023. Bibliografia di Linguistica Educativa in Italia – BLEI Aggiornamento 2022 . EL.LE :1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue