Mase, T. F. (2011). Self- Efficacy, Word Reading and Vocabulary Knowledge in English Language Learners. UMI Dissertation Publishing. United States: ProQuest LLC.

1. SELF-EFFICACY, WORD READING, AND VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
TRICIA FLORENCE MASE, PhD
BS, Trinity College, 2001
MSEd, Fordham University, 2009
Mentor
Joanna K. Uhry, PhD
Readers
Karen E. Brobst, PhD
Giselle B. Esquivel, PsyD
DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
OF FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK
2011

2. All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3461888
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
UMI Number: 3461888

3. ii
© Tricia Florence Mase, 2011, All Rights Reserved.

4. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank the principals and teachers from the
schools involved in my research for their sincere interest and endless support during
data collection. I would also like to acknowledge Melissa Rozon who was an
invaluable asset to the data collection and an integral part in the successful
completion of data collection. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge and thank my
husband, friends, and family for their understanding and support through this entire
process.
TFM

5. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 1
Theoretical and Research Basis 4
Second Language Acquisition 4
Self-Efficacy 5
Vocabulary 9
Word Reading 10
The Study 14
Statement of the Problem 14
Research Questions and Hypotheses 15
Definition of Terms 17
English language learner 17
Self-Efficacy 18
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 18
Word Reading 19
Native Language Vocabulary 20

6. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Second Language Vocabulary 20
Significance of the Problem 20
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 22
Second Language Acquisition 22
Self-Efficacy 25
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 29
Vocabulary 31
Word Reading 34
Summary 43
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY 45
Participants 45
Measures 46
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition 46
Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody 48
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised-Normative Update 49
Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure 50
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 50
Ethical Considerations with Human Subjects 51
Procedures 52
Statistical Analyses 53

7. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 54
Pre-Analysis Data Screening 55
Descriptive Statistics 56
Correlations 59
Path Analysis 60
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 64
Conclusions 64
Limitations and Future Studies 71
Implications for Practice 73
REFERENCES 76
APPENDIX A: SELF-EFFICACY OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE 86
APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL AND PARENT PERMISSION LETTERS 91
ABSTRACT 98
VITA 101

8. vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness,
and Standard Errors of Skewness for Independent
and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 80) 57
2. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness,
and Standard Errors of Skewness for Variables
Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 80) 58
3. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness,
and Standard Errors of Skewness for Independent
and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 74) 58
4. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness,
and Standard Errors of Skewness for Variables
Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 74) 59
5. Intercorrelations Among Independent and
Dependent Variables (N=74) 60
6. Intercorrelations Between Age and Incorrect Items,
Accurate Items, Self-Efficacy and Accuracy of
Self-Efficacy (N=74) 60
7. Simultaneous Regression Analysis Relating
Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, and
Self-Efficacy to English Vocabulary (N=74) 63
8. Simultaneous Regression Analysis Relating
Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, and Accuracy of
Self-Efficacy to English Vocabulary (N=74) 63

9. viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Path analysis model of English
word reading, Spanish vocabulary,
English self-efficacy, and
English vocabulary 16
2. Path analysis model of English
word reading, Spanish vocabulary,
English accuracy of self-efficacy,
and English vocabulary 16
3. Scatterplot for English Word Reading,
Spanish Vocabulary, Self-Efficacy, and
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 56
4. Model of self-efficacy with standardized
coefficients 62
5. Model of accuracy of self-efficacy with
standardized coefficients 62

10. 1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
In the past two decades, the United States school system has seen a dramatic
increase in the number of students for whom a language other than English is spoken
at home. These students are known as English language learners (ELLs). The
federal definition of an English language learner is:
one who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding
the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the
opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of
instruction is in English or to participate fully in our society due to one or
more of the following reasons: 1) was not born in the US or whose native
language is a language other than English and comes from an environment
where a language other than English is dominant; 2) is a Native American or
Alaska Native or who is a native resident of the Outlying Areas and comes
from an environment where a language other than English has had a
significant impact on such individual’s level of English language proficiency;
or 3) is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes
from an environment where a language other than English is dominant.
(Public Law 103-382, sec. 7501 as cited in Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005, pp.
1–2).
Since the 1990-1991 school year, the ELL population has grown
considerably (105%) while the general school population has increased only slightly
(12%) (National Center for Education Statistics as cited in August, Carlo, Dressler,
& Snow, 2005). In addition, 66% of the ELL population in the United States scored
below the English basic reading level in fourth grade and 67% of the ELL population
scored below the English basic reading level in eighth grade (National Assessment

11. 2
of Educational Progress as cited in Cárdenas-Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola,
2007). Based on these statistics, ELLs have recently become a focus of research on
the acquisition of the English language and English literacy skills. However, few
studies have examined the cognitive and affective variables that are important to the
literacy skills of English speaking students to the academic performance of ELLs.
Various models and theories of reading development are consistent in the
notion that the ability to read hinges on the growth of two sets of early reading skills:
skills that are associated with decoding (such as phonological processing abilities
and word reading) and skills associated with comprehension (such as vocabulary
knowledge) (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Snow, 1991; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001).
Studies that have included ELLs focused on vocabulary knowledge because students
who are ELLs are dramatically behind in the number of English vocabulary words
they have acquired when they enter kindergarten (Tabors & Snow, 2001).
Vocabulary knowledge plays a critical role in reading comprehension, learning and
success in all academic areas (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000).
Moreover, the research that has been conducted on these early reading skills
focuses almost exclusively on instruction despite the fact that student characteristics
such as self-efficacy play a significant role in academic outcomes. Schunk and
Zimmerman (2007) state that self-efficacy is a key cognitive and motivational
variable in reading: “Compared with students who doubt their learning capabilities,
those with high self-efficacy for acquiring a skill or performing a task participate
more readily, work harder, persist longer when they encounter difficulties, and

12. 3
achieve at higher levels” (p. 9). Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition
posits that a range of emotions and variables (such as motivation, confidence, and
anxiety) significantly impacts second language learning. Self-efficacy needs to be
incorporated into the study of literacy skills for ELLs. An additional dimension of
self-efficacy that has begun to be expanded upon in self-efficacy research is the
accuracy of self-efficacy or the match between one’s judgment of their ability and
their actual performance (Pajares & Miller, 1997). The match between one’s
judgment and performance represents the level of cognitive awareness one holds
regarding the success or lack thereof one will have on a given task (Chen, 2002;
Klassen, 2006).
A further influence on second language learning is the degree of proficiency
in the native language. Known as the developmental interdependence model,
Cummins’s (1979) theory supports a pivotal step in second language learning known
as cross linguistic transfer where abilities and resources in one’s native language are
accessed and utilized in order to facilitate the learning of the second language.
Consequently, it is important to explore the influences vocabulary knowledge in the
native language may have on the self-efficacy and vocabulary knowledge in the
second language.
A review of the literature indicates that there is no major study examining
self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word reading
abilities in ELL students. Incorporating affective variables such as self-efficacy,
metacognitive variables such as accuracy of self-efficacy, and native language
abilities and resources is crucial in reading research and research involving ELLs. In

13. 4
addition, focusing on vocabulary knowledge has been highlighted as a critical area in
need of improvement for ELLs. Therefore, further investigation is needed to
examine the role self-efficacy plays in vocabulary acquisition among ELLs.
The present study examined, in a sample of ELLs, the direct influence of
self-efficacy on second language vocabulary knowledge, and as a mediator of
English word reading and native language vocabulary knowledge.
Theoretical and Research Basis
Second Language Acquisition
Cummins (1979) proposed that during second language acquisition the degree
of proficiency in the native language will influence the proficiency in the second
language. Known as the developmental interdependence model, Cummins’s theory
supports a pivotal step in second language learning known as crosslinguistic transfer.
Crosslinguistic transfer refers specifically to the occurrence when students learning a
second language access and utilize linguistic resources from their native language
(Leafstedt & Gerber, 2005). Linguistic resources include knowledge of the
alphabetic principal and phonological processing abilities.
One of the first studies to investigate and find support for crosslinguistic
transfer was conducted by Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993). The
authors found that native language phonemic awareness predicted significant
variance in second language word reading among first-grade students. Over the next
decade, additional studies by several authors such as Quiroga, Lemos-Britton,
Mostafapour, Abbott, and Berninger (2002) and Lindsey, Manis, and Bailey (2003)
continued to find evidence for and support Cummins’s theory.

14. 5
As the research concerning the developmental interdependence model began
to expand, several authors found support for crosslinguistic transfer of other abilities
such as phonological memory, print concepts, and letter knowledge (Dickinson,
McCabe, Clark-Chiarelli, & Wolf, 2004; Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis, Lindsey, &
Bailey, 2004; Swanson, Saez, Gerber, & Leafstedt, 2004).
Further research recommended that studies should investigate whether or not
oral language abilities transferred between languages (Cárdenas-Hagan et al., 2007;
Manis et al., 2004). Along those lines, crosslinguistic transfer research has
progressed to include vocabulary knowledge (Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim,
1999; San Francisco, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2006). This research emphasized that
the understanding of crosslinguistic transfer of vocabulary is still unfolding and
needs to be explored in future studies. Consequently, this study incorporated
Spanish vocabulary to investigate the influences it may have on English vocabulary
knowledge.
Self-Efficacy
Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition integrates five hypotheses
that explain the processes of acquisition. The hypothesis most relevant to this study
and perhaps the least incorporated in studies is the affective filter hypothesis. This
aspect of Krashen’s theory refers to the range of emotions and affective variables
(motivation, confidence, anxiety) that influence language acquisition. There are
three general affective filters: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Krashen
(1982) posited that increased, negative arousal (high anxiety) interferes with the
acquisition process. Krashen’s model allows researchers to integrate affective

15. 6
variables such as self-efficacy based on established theory. In addition, Proctor,
Dalton, and Grisham (2007) emphasized that future research involving English
language learners must include measures of self-efficacy in addition to the cognitive
processes being studied to determine the role affective variables may play in
learning.
In his 1977 seminal article, Bandura established the concept of self-efficacy.
Over the next few years, he solidified this concept by developing the theoretical
framework renowned today as social cognitive theory. Essentially, social cognitive
theory refers to the way human functioning is interpreted as a series of reciprocal
interactions among personal influences such as self-efficacy, environmental factors,
and behaviors. Specifically, self-efficacy refers to beliefs people have regarding
their ability to perform specific behaviors or tasks. Bandura (1986) posited that
self-efficacy is more powerful than knowledge, skill, and prior attainment.
These beliefs about behaviors can be applied in a myriad of settings. In
education, self-efficacy influences the choice of activities, effort expenditure,
persistence, and achievement (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 2001). Students with high
self-efficacy participate more willingly, work harder, exhibit more diligence when
faced with challenging tasks, and achieve academically at higher levels. Conversely,
self-efficacy is influenced by performance, modeled experiences, forms of
persuasion such as feedback, and physiological reactions (Schunk & Zimmerman,
2007).
Since 1977, researchers have investigated the role self-efficacy plays in
academic achievement and linked self-efficacy to academic performance (Multon,

16. 7
Brown, & Lent, 1991; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Pons, 1992). Since the predictive
role of self-efficacy has been supported in the research numerous times, Graham and
Weiner (1996) (as cited in Pajares, 2003) stated that self-efficacy is a more constant
predictor of outcomes than other self-beliefs.
Perhaps the most important area where self-efficacy has been investigated is
reading because learning to read is the key to success in school. Many researchers
have found evidence supporting self-efficacy as a predictor for reading achievement
(Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Ehrlich, Kurtz-Costes, & Loridant, 1993; Schunk & Rice,
1991; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989). Specifically, Shell, Colvin, and Bruning
(1995) found that higher achievement was associated with higher self-efficacy, and
Lynch (2002) and Wilson and Trainin (2007) found a link between children’s
perceptions of their reading ability and their reading achievement.
A review of the self-efficacy and reading literature invariably utilizes reading
achievement as the outcome measure. However, reading achievement is comprised
of many more basic and critical skills such as decoding (e.g. word reading) and
comprehension (e.g. vocabulary). Pajares (1996a) posited that assessments of
self-efficacy must be task and domain specific since the judgments of self-efficacy
are specific to the particular task being assessed. In other words, the self-efficacy
beliefs should correspond directly to the domain being measured. In the literature
reviewed, not one article investigated the effects self-efficacy has on basic skills of
reading such as vocabulary despite the critical role both factors play in academic
achievement as evidenced by the research. Based on the self-efficacy literature,
beliefs a student has regarding how well they can derive the meaning of a word may

17. 8
mediate and significantly influence their performance on vocabulary measures.
Although self-efficacy beliefs are important to reading, research on the second
language acquisition of ELLs has failed to include self-efficacy as a variable. The
present study addressed this need by incorporating self-efficacy of vocabulary
knowledge.
An additional characteristic of self-efficacy that was explored in the
present study is the issue of calibration or accuracy of self-efficacy. Calibration is
the congruence between a students’ judgment of their capability to perform and their
actual performance (Pajares & Miller, 1997). Regarding mathematics, researchers
have consistently discovered that students are often overconfident in their ability to
solve math problems (Hackett, 1985; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pajares & Miller, 1994).
In addition, results have shown that typically achieving students are also
overconfident in rating their academic abilities (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares &
Miller, 1994). Overconfidence may lead to students not studying adequately or not
being receptive to corrective feedback on their academic work, which, in turn,
impacts their academic performance negatively (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004;
Garavalia & Gredler, 2002). Researchers have found a relationship between a more
exact judgment of one’s ability and improved test grades in college students (Hacker,
Bol, & Horgan, 2000). In the present study, the accuracy between a student’s
self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge and her actual vocabulary knowledge was
assessed and the influence the accuracy of self-efficacy may have on vocabulary
knowledge was explored.

18. 9
Vocabulary
In April 2000, the National Reading Panel concluded that the cognitive
process of reading comprehension is an integration of complex abilities. Moreover,
reading comprehension cannot be understood without investigating the essential role
of vocabulary learning and instruction as well as its development. After reviewing
50 studies from 1979 to the late 1990s that met the panel’s strict criteria, the
researchers on the panel determined that the role of vocabulary knowledge in reading
comprehension is crucial and necessary to make gains in reading comprehension.
The significant role vocabulary knowledge plays has long been recognized in
education dating back to 1925 (Whipple as cited in National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2000). Since that time, the strong correlation and
predictive relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension
has been supported time and time again in the research literature (Fukkink & de
Glopper, 1998; Klesius & Searls, 1990; National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).
There are two main types of vocabulary knowledge: oral and print. Oral
vocabulary refers to words that are used when speaking and listening, and print
vocabulary refers to words that are recognized and used in print. As children learn
to read, they utilize their oral vocabulary in addition to phonological processing and
decoding abilities for recognizing and understanding words encountered in print.
Because oral vocabulary is much larger than print vocabulary, it is a key component
in a child’s transition from understanding oral word forms to written word forms.
The fewer the words children have in their oral vocabulary, the fewer words they

19. 10
will understand in print and vice versa (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000).
Tabors and Snow (2001) found that ELLs have acquired significantly
less English vocabulary words when they begin formal schooling. August et al.
(2005) also found that ELLs know less about the meaning of each word. Research
provides evidence that this gap is persistent through the school years: “ELLs who
experience slow vocabulary development are less able to comprehend text at grade
level than their EO (English only) peers, and they may be at risk of being diagnosed
as learning disabled when in fact their limitation is due to limited English
vocabulary,” (August et al., 2005, p. 50). The poor vocabulary of ELLs affects
performance at every grade level and on every type of assessment including
curriculum based measures, classroom tests, and more formal, standard tests such as
state-wide exams. Current research has focused on effective instructional methods
for teaching ELLs vocabulary. It is also necessary to begin investigating the role
cognitive and affective variables play in vocabulary acquisition for ELLs since the
need to understand influences on learning vocabulary and increase vocabulary
knowledge is critical.
Word Reading
There are several theories, hypotheses, and models of reading development.
In general, most schools of thought recognize two sets of skills that are crucial in
early reading: skills that are associated with decoding such as phonological
processing and word reading and skills that are associated with comprehension such
as vocabulary knowledge (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Snow, 1991; Whitehurst &

20. 11
Lonigan, 2001). Reading ability develops in a particular developmental trajectory
from more basic skills such as phonological processing (processing the sounds of a
language) to more complex skills such as reading comprehension. In early reading
development, prekindergarten through first grade, Frost, Madsbjerg, Niedersoe,
Olofosson, and Sorensen (2005) stress that phonological processing skills are
necessary to initiate reading ability since they are the building blocks of decoding or
the ability to match the sounds of a language with the letters of a language.
Accordingly, phonological processing skills are the most significant predictors and
major cognitive determinants of word reading skills, which begin to emerge in first
grade and become more developed around second grade (Bus & van Ijezendoorn,
1999; Ehri, 2005; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; McBride-Chang, 1996; Muter, Hulme,
Snowling, & Taylor, 1998; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987;
Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994).
Specifically, Ehri (2005) enumerated four developmental phases that occur as
children learn to read words by sight: pre-alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full
alphabetic, and consolidated alphabetic. The pre-alphabetic phase consists of
children reading words by visual cues instead of letter-sound connections. For
children who have sufficient literacy experiences, the pre-alphabetic phase occurs
during the pre-school years. For those who lack literacy experience, this phase
occurs at the start of school. By late kindergarten, children advance to the partial
alphabetic phase when they learn the names and sounds of the letters in the alphabet
and use those skills to remember how to read words. Around the beginning of first
grade, children then become full alphabetic readers as they learn to read words by

21. 12
forming a complete association between letters and sounds. This phase continues for
approximately two years. As children use their full alphabetic abilities to retain
more and more words in their memory, they progress to the consolidated alphabetic
phase. The author highlights that these phases are flexible meaning children
experience them at different ages based upon inherent abilities and external
experiences, yet, once set in motion, the phases unfold successively.
In 1987, Wagner and Torgesen reviewed the literature and established three
main types of phonological processing abilities that support word reading:
phonological awareness, phonological recoding in lexical access (retrieval of
phonological codes from long-term memory), and phonetic recoding to maintain
information in the working memory (phonological coding in short term memory).
Phonological awareness is a broad term that refers to processing the elemental
sounds of a language (phonemic awareness is a component of phonological
awareness) and the awareness of and access to the phonology of a language.
Retrieval of phonological codes (also known as rapid naming or phonological
naming) refers to the ability to access the pronunciation of letters, digits and words
from the sound based representational system of written symbols created in
long-term memory. Lastly, phonological coding in short term memory refers to the
storage and immediate use of the sound based system of written symbols during
ongoing processing (phonological memory).
In 1984, Share, Jorm, Maclean, and Matthews found that phonemic awareness
and letter knowledge determined how well children learned to read. The National
Reading Panel (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of research on phonemic awareness

22. 13
and found that training students in phonemic awareness improved their reading. Ehri
et al. (2001) found similar results in their replication of the study conducted by the
National Reading Panel.
In addition to phonemic awareness, access to the phonological codes is a
significant predictor of reading achievement (Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). de Jong
and van der Leij (1999) extended previous work by Wagner and Torgesen and
investigated the effects of the different phonological abilities on reading
achievement. The authors found that rapid naming was not related to phonological
awareness and phonological coding and that rapid naming was the only phonological
ability that influenced subsequent reading achievement. These findings suggest a
difference between accessing information and simply having the information.
Subsequent research support these findings (Manis, Seidenberg, & Doi, 1999). Wolf
and Bowers (1999) concluded that naming speed and phonemic awareness do in fact
contribute independently and uniquely to reading acquisition, which led to the
creation of the double deficit hypothesis where reading difficulties arise from
problems with phonemic awareness and naming speed. Further research (Anthony,
Williams, McDonald, & Francis, 2007; Cardoso-Martins & Pennington, 2004;
Sunseth & Bowers, 2002) continues to support this model.
Phonological memory refers to the ability that children have to create
temporary phonological blueprints of unfamiliar sound sequences in short term
working memory. This ability has also been linked to vocabulary acquisition
(Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989). More specifically, phonological memory has been
found to contribute to vocabulary directly by significantly predicting vocabulary

23. 14
knowledge (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole &
Baddeley, 1990; Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, & Baddeley, 1992). Moreover,
researchers have found that phonological memory plays a significant role in second
language acquisition (Cheung, 1996; Service, 1992; Swanson et al., 2004).
Several studies support the significance of various phonological processing
skills in explaining variance in English vocabulary among native English speaking
children (Avons, Wragg, & Cupples, 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole, Service,
Hitch, Adams, & Martin, 1999; Gathercole et al., 1992; Metsala, 1999). More
specifically, McBride-Chang, Cheung, Chow, Chow, and Choi (2006) investigated
the association of metalinguistic skills and vocabulary. The authors specifically
found that phonemic awareness in English accounted for unique variance in English
vocabulary knowledge. In addition, McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow and Shu
(2005) found that phonological awareness, phonological or rapid naming, and
phonological memory predicted a portion of the variance in vocabulary knowledge.
Bowey (2001) concluded that an overall phonological processing construct would
sufficiently explain vocabulary knowledge in young children. In order to reflect the
developmental aspects of reading, word reading was assessed in this study as a
representation of the three types of phonological processing abilities or students’
decoding skills.
The Study
Statement of the Problem
Extensive research has been conducted regarding self-efficacy, accuracy of
self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word reading. However, limited research

24. 15
has been conducted in these areas that include ELLs. In addition, little to no
research has been conducted to explore the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of
self-efficacy on word reading and native and second language vocabulary
knowledge. Consequently, the overall purpose of the study was to determine, for
this sample of ELLs, the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on
vocabulary knowledge in English as mediators of the relationship between word
reading in a second language (English) and vocabulary knowledge in a native
language (Spanish) to vocabulary knowledge in a second language (English).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The aim of this study was to explore how self-efficacy and accuracy of
self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge in a second language (English) mediated the
relationship of word reading in a second language (English) and vocabulary
knowledge in a native language (Spanish) to vocabulary knowledge in a second
language (English). Path analysis causal models were used to determine the direct,
indirect, and causal relationships among the variables (see Figures 1 and 2).

25. 16
Figure 1. Path analysis model of English word reading, Spanish vocabulary,
self-efficacy, and English vocabulary.
Figure 2. Path analysis model of English word reading, Spanish vocabulary,
accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary.
This study was designed to answer the following questions:
Question 1: Are the models—which describe the effects among the variables
English word reading, self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English
English Word
Reading
Spanish
Vocabulary
Knowledge
Self-Efficacy
of English
Vocabulary
Knowledge
English
Vocabulary
Knowledge
English Word
Reading
Spanish
Vocabulary
Knowledge
Accuracy of
Self-Efficacy
of English
Vocabulary
Knowledge
English
Vocabulary
Knowledge

26. 17
vocabulary knowledge, and Spanish and English vocabulary knowledge—consistent
with the observed relationships among these variables?
Hypothesis: The models would be consistent with the observed relationships
among English word reading, Spanish vocabulary knowledge, self-efficacy, accuracy
of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary knowledge.
Question 2: If the models are consistent, what are the direct, indirect, and
causal effects among the variables?
Hypothesis: English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge would
contribute directly to English vocabulary knowledge.
Hypothesis: English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge would
contribute directly to self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English
vocabulary knowledge.
Hypothesis: Self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English vocabulary
knowledge would contribute directly to English vocabulary knowledge.
Hypothesis: Self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy would mediate the
relationship between English word reading and Spanish vocabulary to English
vocabulary.
Definitions of Terms
English language learner
The federal definition of an ELL is:
one who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding
the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the
opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of
instruction is in English or to participate fully in our society due to one or
more of the following reasons: 1) was not born in the US or whose native

27. 18
language is a language other than English and comes from an environment
where a language other than English is dominant; 2) is a Native American or
Alaska Native or who is a native resident of the Outlying Areas and comes
from an environment where a language other than English has had a
significant impact on such individual’s level of English language proficiency;
or 3) is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes
from an environment where a language other than English is dominant.
(Public Law 103-382, sec. 7501 as cited in Rhodes et al., 2005, pp. 1–2).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to a learner’s perceived capabilities, beliefs, or judgments
for learning or performing actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1977).
Self-efficacy is also defined as confidence in one’s ability to organize and implement
the cognitive, behavioral, and/or social skills necessary for the successful
performance of a task (Shell et al., 1995). Other literature has defined self-efficacy
as the level of certainty or sureness that a person can successfully complete a task.
In this study, self-efficacy was measured by asking the participants how well they
thought they could describe different vocabulary words.
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy
Accuracy of self-efficacy is the match between a student’s judgment of her
capability to perform and her actual performance (Pajares & Miller, 1997). The
match between one’s judgment and performance represents the level of cognitive
awareness one holds regarding the success or lack thereof one will have on a given
task (Chen, 2002; Klassen, 2006). The accuracy of self-efficacy of vocabulary
knowledge was determined by administering the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) items that made up the self-efficacy measure to
ascertain whether or not the participants knew the words.

28. 19
The accuracy scores were calculated based on procedures suggested by
Pajares and Graham 1999. First, the bias for each item was calculated. To calculate
bias, each correct answer was scored as 3 and each incorrect answer as 1. These 1
and 3 scores correspond to the self-efficacy scores from 1 to 3. For example, a
subject who expressed “not good” (1) regarding describing a word and did not know
the word on the PPVT (1) received a bias score of 0 (1 – 1 = 0). Alternately, a
subject who expressed “not good” (1) and who answered the PPVT correctly (3)
received a bias score of −2, indicating under confidence. Thus, bias scores ranged
from −2 to +2. To calculate accuracy, the absolute value of each bias score was
subtracted from 2 (maximum amount of judgment error). Thus, accuracy scores
ranged from 0 (complete inaccuracy) to 2 (complete accuracy). For data analyses,
the mean score on all 36 items was calculated.
Word Reading
Wording reading is the ability to recognize or identify words in print. This
ability can be determined by decoding ability, which, in turn, is determined by the
following phonological processing abilities: phonemic awareness, phonological
naming, and phonological memory. In addition, the ability to identify words in
print progresses through the four developmental phases that occur as children learn
to read words by sight: pre-alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic and
consolidated alphabetic. Word reading was measured by administering the Word
Identification subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, 1998).

29. 20
Native Language Vocabulary
Native language or primary language is the language a person acquires first or
earliest in childhood. Native language vocabulary refers to the knowledge of word
meanings a person has acquired in their first language. Native language vocabulary
was measured using the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP), which is
an efficient measure of Spanish vocabulary knowledge based on the widely used
PPVT-R (Dunn, Hugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1986).
Second Language Vocabulary
A second language is a language learned by a person after his or her native
language. Second language vocabulary is the knowledge of word meanings a person
has acquired in their second language. The second language in this study was
English. English vocabulary knowledge was measured using the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007).
Significance of the Problem
Informed by the findings of previous research, the limitations of previous
studies, gaps in the research, and suggestions by researchers, there was a need for
further investigation of basic early reading skills and self-efficacy in ELLs.
Specifically, little to no research has been conducted to explore the influence of
self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on vocabulary knowledge. In addition,
limited research has been conducted in these areas that include ELLs. Thus, the
purpose of the present study was to address the gaps in the research and provide
additional information concerning the relationships among self-efficacy, vocabulary

30. 21
knowledge, and word reading in ELLs. By addressing the gaps in the research, the
present study may help teachers, researchers, and school psychologists by providing
more specific information regarding how these basic processes unfold and are
influenced by affective and cognitive factors in ELLs. The results may inform
appropriate interventions and teaching methods in order to help ELLs succeed by
increasing their academic performance and closing the achievement gap.

31. 22
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The research literature review integrates work from the fields of second
language acquisition, self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word reading. In
particular, the review focuses on the influence self-efficacy has in academic
outcomes and specific research regarding the role of word reading and native
language vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary knowledge. In
addition, the review specifies the processes involved in second language acquisition.
The research reviewed below provides support for the relationships among the topics
regarding how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy can directly influence
second language vocabulary knowledge, and act as a mediator between English
word reading and native language vocabulary knowledge and second language
vocabulary.
Second Language Acquisition
Durgunoglu et al. (1993) conducted one of the earliest studies that
investigated and found evidence for crosslinguistic transfer. The primary aim of the
study involved investigating the variables that affected the English word recognition
abilities of native Spanish speakers who were beginning readers in English. A total
of 31 first graders were individually administered various tests in two sessions.

32. 23
During the first session, an English letter naming test, Spanish word recognition test,
English word recognition test, Spanish phonological awareness test, and Spanish oral
proficiency test were administered. During the second session, the following tests
were administered: English pseudoword training and reading, English word reading,
and English oral proficiency.
Using multiple regression, the authors found that native-language phonemic
awareness predicted significant variance in second language word reading.
Specifically, the results showed that the best predictors of performance on English
pseudoword reading and English word recognition were Spanish phonological
awareness and Spanish word recognition. Quiroga et al. (2002) replicated the
Durgunoglu et al. study and added phonological awareness assessments in English.
The authors also found support for the cross linguistic transfer of phonemic
awareness from the native language to the second language in first-grade students.
Subsequent studies by Dickinson et al. (2004), Lindsey et al. (2003), Manis et
al. (2004), and Swanson et al. (2004) found similar results. Moreover, these studies
found support for the crosslinguistic transfer of other resources such as phonological
memory, print concepts, and letter knowledge where these abilities in the native
language predicted various linguistic abilities in English such as phonemic
awareness, letter knowledge, and word reading.
One limitation of these studies is the focus on a select few component skills
such as phonological abilities, letter knowledge or word reading. Cárdenas-Hagan et
al. (2007) and Manis et al. (2004) proposed that research needs to look beyond these
skills and investigate other skills such as oral language abilities which include

33. 24
vocabulary. Among a sample of Spanish-speaking ELLs in first through third grade,
Carlisle et al. (1999) investigated the development of the metalinguistic abilities in
reading. The aim of the study was to determine which native, second, and bilingual
language levels contributed to metalinguistic abilities in both languages and to
determine if metalinguistic development at the word level played a role in English
reading comprehension. Sixty-seven native Spanish speaking students in first,
second, and third grade were administered several tests: the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Revised, the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes
Peabody-Adaptacion Hispanoamericana, the Listening Comprehension, and the
Letter-Word Identification subtests of the Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational
Battery-Revised, the Test of Auditory Analysis Skills, the vocabulary task created
from the Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and the
Reading Comprehension subtest from the California Achievement Test.
Hierarchical regression analyses showed that the students’ native language
vocabulary accounted for significant variance in English reading comprehension.
More specifically, San Francisco et al. (2006) tested 102 kindergarten and first-grade
children to explore influences on bilingual students’ phonological awareness by
examining the role of language of instruction and vocabulary. The students
individually completed the Spanish and English Picture Vocabulary subtests from
the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery and a phonemic segmentation task.
Analyses of variance were conducted to explore the relationships among language of
instruction, English and Spanish vocabulary, and English phonological awareness.

34. 25
The authors found that the amount of variation explained by English vocabulary
depended on the students’ Spanish vocabulary.
The authors also emphasize that the understanding of the crosslinguistic
transfer of vocabulary is developing, and it is important to continue to be examined
in future studies. The authors state a few limitations of the study which include the
sample itself since it is not representative of Spanish-English bilinguals as a whole,
the sample could have differed on the level of language dominance, the students
could have committed frequent errors on the segmentation task since they realized
that all the items contained three phonemes and followed that pattern instead of
doing an analysis of each item, and orthographic knowledge was not assessed. In
light of the limitations, the authors emphasize that caution should be taken when
interpreting and generalizing the results. This study incorporated Spanish
vocabulary to further examine the impact it may have on English vocabulary
knowledge.
Self-Efficacy
Regarding Krashen’s theory, McCann, Hecht, and Ribeau (1986) tested the
affective filter hypothesis or the notion that language input is blocked unless the
language learner has a low affective filter. A questionnaire was administered to 238
college students who were nonnative English speakers. Of the sample included in
the analyses, 126 Vietnamese and 45 were Spanish speaking. Results indicated that
second language input was negatively related to communication apprehension,
thereby supporting the affective filter hypothesis.

35. 26
Researchers have investigated the influence of self-efficacy on academic
achievement since the seventies. In a meta-analysis, Multon et al. (1991)
investigated the relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes. This article
was the first to provide a more extensive analysis of the literature linking
self-efficacy to academic performance and persistence outcomes and to utilize
meta-analytic methodology as opposed to a commentary on the literature. The
authors utilized three techniques in order to find studies for the analyses: database
searches, reference list reviews of all articles found, and reviews of table of contents
of the journals containing articles that were found from the initial search.
In total, these searches found 68 published and unpublished studies. In order
to be included in the meta-analyses, the studies had to meet the following criteria:
contain a measure of self-efficacy, contain a measure of academic performance or
persistence, and contain enough information to calculate effect sizes. After applying
these criteria, 39 studies were used for the analyses. For the performance
meta-analysis, the authors used 38 samples from 36 studies, which included
approximately 5,000 subjects, a majority of elementary students, and 19 different
measures of academic performance. The performance measures were categorized
into standardized achievement tests, classroom based measures, and basic skills
tasks. The results showed a positive, significant relationship between self-efficacy
and academic performance. In addition, the authors found that self-efficacy effects
were stronger in lower achieving students suggesting that self-efficacy plays a bigger
role in these students’ academic outcomes. The authors note that the latter findings
may be due to the analyses involving the lower achieving students being based on

36. 27
post-treatment results. Overall, the authors caution that their results are slightly
compromised because of the “less than optimal data reporting practices in the
literature.”
In 1992, Zimmerman et al. investigated the role of self-efficacy beliefs in
self-motivation and academic attainment. One hundred and two ninth and tenth
graders participated in the study from a large Eastern city from a lower middle class
neighborhood. The students completed two subscales from the Children’s
Multidimensional Self-Efficacy Scales: self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and
self-efficacy for academic achievement. The students’ grade goals were also
obtained. Using path analysis, the authors found that students’ self-efficacy
predicted final course grades and that academic self-efficacy influenced achievement
directly. The predictive and influential role of self-efficacy has been supported in
the research from diverse areas, and, in 1996, Graham and Weiner (as cited in
Pajares, 2003) boldly remarked that because of the depth and breadth of support of
self-efficacy it can be concluded that self-efficacy is a more consistent predictor of
outcomes than other self-beliefs.
Many researchers have linked self-efficacy to reading achievement (Ehrlich et
al., 1993; Schunk & Rice, 1991; Shell et al., 1989). Shell et al. (1995) investigated
self-efficacy, grade, and achievement in reading and writing in 364 fourth-, seventh-,
and tenth-grade students. In order to measure self-efficacy, the authors created a
measurement based on the research. Students were asked to rate how sure they were
that they could do several reading and writing tasks on a five point scale. Reading
and writing was measured by using students’ scores on the California Achievement

37. 28
Test. In order to gain a holistic writing score, students completed an essay that was
scored by raters since the California Achievement Test does not contain a subtest
where writing is performed. For the analyses, the students were also categorized into
high, average, and low achievement groups using the students’ scores on the study’s
measures. Using a multivariate analyses of variance, the authors found that overall,
for all grade levels, higher achievement was associated with higher self-efficacy.
In addition, Baker and Wigfield (1999) found that self-efficacy is related to
reading achievement. From a large mid-Atlantic city, 371 fifth- and sixth-grade
students participated in the study. The students completed the Motivation for
Reading Questionnaire, the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, a reading activity
adapted from the Reading Activity Inventory, a performance assessment, and the
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. The authors found that the self-efficacy
subscale of the motivation scale related significantly to the reading section of the
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills and the performance assessment for reading.
Specifically, Lynch (2002) and Wilson and Trainin (2007) found that
children’s perceptions of their reading ability significantly related to reading
achievement. The aim of Wilson and Trainin’s study, in 2007, was to determine
how to reliably measure attributions, perceived competence and self-efficacy in
young children, how well young students differentiate among their perceived
abilities in various domains, and how well the data fit their proposed model. One
hundred and ninety-eight first-grade students from a large southern California school
district were administered the Early Literacy Motivation Scale. Scores from the
Scholastic Unit Test were used to obtain data on decoding, vocabulary and

38. 29
comprehension. Another reading score was obtained using the Reading Running
Records and writing was assessed using a rubric developed by the school district. To
determine how self-efficacy related to the different literacy tasks, a
repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. The authors found that the students
were able to differentiate their self-efficacy among the different literacy tasks. In
addition, the analyses show the data is a good fit to the model which showed
self-efficacy influencing literacy achievement. One limitation of the study is Early
Literacy Motivation Scale being utilized for the first time in this research. In order
to reliably interpret the results, the authors urge the study to be replicated in further
studies with first graders.
Since reading achievement is comprised of numerous basic and critical skills
such as decoding (e.g. word reading) and comprehension (e.g. vocabulary), Pajares
(1996a) posited that measures of self-efficacy need to match the particular domain
being assessed. In the present study, this necessitated that vocabulary be isolated as
the specific task being assessed. Currently, there are no articles examining the
effects self-efficacy has on basic skills of reading such as vocabulary. Based on the
literature reviewed, beliefs a student possesses concerning how well they can derive
the meaning of a word may mediate and significantly affect their performance on
vocabulary assessments.
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy
To investigate the relationship between performance and calibration, Pajares
and Miller (1997) tested 327 eighth-grade students in a southern state. The
following instruments were individually administered a math self-efficacy task and

39. 30
a math performance test. Using a MANOVA, the authors compared students in
algebra and pre-algebra and students who took a multiple choice test and students
who were given an open-ended question math test. The results showed that the
students who were given open ended test were overconfident and had low accuracy
and the students in pre-algebra had lower accuracy scores as well even though there
was no difference in self-efficacy scores when compared to students in the algebra
class. Overall, the authors found that the more capable students were more accurate
in the judgment of their ability since they seem to better understand what they knew
and did not know.
Pajares (1996b) conducted a study to determine the predictive and mediational
role of math self-efficacy in gifted students and to determine if math related
measures, especially calibration, varied by group membership and/or gender. A
math self-efficacy, math performance and math anxiety measure were administered
to 297 eighth-grade students in a southern state. Cognitive ability was determined
by scores on the California Achievement Test of Cognitive Skills. Using a
MANOVA, the authors found the gifted students were more accurate in their
performance than the regular education students. Accordingly, more accurate
assessments of one’s ability have related to more efficient study habits and higher
test scores in college students (Hacker et al., 2000).
A review of the calibration literature did not yield an investigation
concerning the accuracy of self-efficacy in students younger than fifth grade.
Ramdass and Zimmerman (2008) conducted a study to determine whether training
students to utilize a self-correction strategy would facilitate greater self-efficacy and

40. 31
accuracy in their performance. Using a pretest-posttest design, 42 students in
fifth and sixth grade were assigned to experimental and control groups with students
in the experimental group receiving the self-correction strategy training. The task
consisted of students completing four math problems that were aligned with the
curriculum. The study was divided into four phases: in phase one, students
completed the pretest; in phase two, students in the experimental group received the
training as both groups were taught how to solve long division problems; in phase
three, students in both groups completed the math problems with students in the
experimental group receiving a self-correction checklist; and in the fourth phase, all
students rated their ability to solve the problems. Using a MANCOVA analysis, the
authors found that the training significantly improved the students’ self-efficacy and
math performance. To further analyze the data, the authors used an ANCOVA and
found that students in the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher
accuracy and lower bias. Finally, overall, the students’ self-efficacy and accuracy
scores significantly predicted math performance. In this study, the match between a
student’s self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge and her actual vocabulary
knowledge was measured, and the impact that accuracy of self-efficacy may have
on vocabulary knowledge was investigated.
Vocabulary
One of the first meta-analyses conducted concerning vocabulary was
completed by Stahl and Fairbanks (1986). They conducted a meta-analysis with
studies concerning word meanings and comprehension to determine if vocabulary
instruction has a significant influence on comprehension and which types of

41. 32
vocabulary instruction are most effective. They identified 52 studies through
searches on ERIC, past reviews, and bibliographies and meeting two criteria: the
studies had to include one of two types of control groups (no exposure or no
instruction) and the studies must provide statistical information to obtain an effect
size. Using ANOVAs and t-tests, the mean effect for the variables was determined
as well as its significant difference from zero. The authors found that vocabulary
instruction has a significant effect on comprehension and teaching methods that
include definitional and contextual information, involve deeper processing, and
permit more than one or two exposures to the words significantly impact students’
learning of word meanings.
Guided by this study and two other meta-analyses that support the
significance of vocabulary (Fukkink & de Glopper, 1998; Klesius & Searls, 1991),
the National Reading Panel conducted their own review of the literature in 2000.
Through database searches, 50 studies from 1979 to the late 1990s were reviewed
that met the panel’s strict criteria. While a formal meta-analysis was not possible,
the researchers on the panel scrutinized each study and determined that the role of
vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension is crucial and necessary to make
gains in reading comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000).
Compared to their native English speaking counterparts, ELLs are
dramatically behind in the number of English vocabulary words they have acquired
when they enter kindergarten because of more limited exposure to English, which
inhibits them from building sufficient English oral vocabulary (Tabors & Snow,

42. 33
2001). Biemiller and Slonim (2001) discovered that native English speaking
students know approximately 5,000 to 7,000 words before they begin formal reading
instruction. This is not the case for second language learners. Umbel, Pearson,
Fernandez, and Oller (1992) tested the receptive vocabulary of 105 native Spanish
speaking first-grade students. The students were administered the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test and the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes. Results were analyzed
by comparing two groups: students who spoke both English and Spanish at home
and students who only spoke Spanish at home. The authors found that both groups
scored significantly below the mean on the English vocabulary measure with the
only Spanish at home group scoring even lower.
In addition, August et al. (2005) discovered that ELLs have acquired less
information regarding the meanings of words. Verhallen and Schoonen (1993)
investigated the depth of vocabulary knowledge of second language learners in third
and fifth grades using a word association task. The results showed a delay in the
acquisition of the depth of word knowledge for second language learners. August,
Carlo, Lively, Lippman, McLaughlin, and Snow (1999) found similar results. They
compared the vocabulary performances between over 200 native English speaking
fourth and fifth graders and over 100 native Spanish speaking English language
learners. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was used to determine the breadth of
vocabulary knowledge. The results showed a large gap between the native English
speakers and the native Spanish speakers with the native English speaking students
scoring higher.
To determine the depth of vocabulary knowledge, the students completed to

43. 34
tasks that measured their knowledge of the multiple meaning of words. Compared to
the native English speakers, the native Spanish speakers performed lower. This
study also showed evidence that this gap did not decrease over the course of the
school-year. Unless addressed, research and statistics provide evidence that these
gaps in vocabulary knowledge and their negative effects on the academic
performance of ELLs is persistent through the school years (August et al., 2005).
Since most current research focuses on effective instructional methods for teaching
ELLs vocabulary, it is necessary to examine the influence cognitive and affective
variables may have in the vocabulary acquisition of ELLs.
Word Reading
Share et al. (1984) conducted a study with over 500 kindergarteners
representing a range of socioeconomic status from several schools in Australia. The
authors obtained information about the home educational environment from a short
questionnaire that parents completed. Questions sought information about literacy at
home, the quantity and quality of television viewing and the parents’ educational
aspirations. The students were administered five measures of early literacy, six
measures of oral language ability, and measures of motor skills and social behavior.
The authors performed multiple regression analyses and found that phonemic
awareness and letter knowledge were the two best school predictors of how well
children will learn to read during the first two years of schooling. Based on these
findings, the authors argue that phonological processing skills are a significant
source of individual differences in reading achievement.

44. 35
A more thorough investigation of the role of phonemic awareness was
conducted by the National Reading Panel (2000). The panel performed a
meta-analysis on research regarding phonemic awareness and its relation to reading
acquisition, including the large number of studies investigating the effectiveness of
phonemic awareness training. Fifty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis
from which 96 comparisons of treatment and control were selected. The findings
showed that training students in phonemic awareness was highly effective for a
variety of learners, ages, grades, and in diverse teaching conditions. The National
Reading Panel’s analysis also found that teaching phonemic awareness to students
significantly increased their reading when compared to teaching that does not
incorporate phonemic awareness.
As a follow up, Ehri et al. (2001) reproduced the study and obtained
consistent findings. In a search of two electronic databases (ERIC and PsychInfo),
the authors found slightly over 2,000 articles. Studies had to meet five criteria in
order to qualify for data analyses: (a) include an experimental or quasiexperimental
design, (b) appear in a refereed journal, (c) test the hypothesis that instruction in
phonemic awareness improves reading performance over other forms of instruction
or no instruction, (d) provide instruction in phonemic awareness, and (e) report
statistics that allowed the calculation of effect sizes. Fifty-two studies met the
authors’ criteria. From those 52 studies, 96 cases included comparisons of
individual treatment and control groups. The authors focused their attention on
controlled experiments since these provide the most solid scientific evidence that

45. 36
supports causal conclusions about the effect of phonemic awareness instruction on
learning to read.
The primary outcomes were phonemic awareness, reading and spelling. After
thoroughly analyzing effect sizes between treatment and control groups, the authors
found repeatedly across multiple studies that phonemic awareness instruction is
more effective than alternate forms or no instruction at all in teaching phonemic
awareness and facilitating children’s acquisition of reading and spelling skills. Other
results included finding that mid to high socioeconomic status (SES) children
benefitted from phonemic awareness instruction as much as low SES students,
children who were taught one or two phonemic awareness skills showed stronger
phonemic awareness ability and transfer to reading than children who were taught
three or more phonemic awareness skills, and phonemic awareness instruction
helped improve students’ reading comprehension.
The authors state that other variables that may have had an impact on results
but were not included in the meta-analysis were dialect and whether English was the
first or second language. Moreover, limitations of the study include using
correlations between studies as comparisons, not all of the studies contributed to all
of the effect sizes, and phonemic awareness is not the sole key to learning how to
read. The authors emphasize that instruction should include all of the skills
necessary in learning how to read such as letter naming, site word learning, and
vocabulary.
Regarding the important role of phonemic awareness in learning English as a
second language, McBride-Chang et al. (2006) explored the role English phonemic

46. 37
awareness may play in English vocabulary among young Chinese students learning
English as a second language. The authors recruited 217 kindergarteners from three
classrooms in Hong Kong. The children were administered syllable deletion, onset
deletion, word reading, and vocabulary knowledge in both English and Chinese.
Other measures included Chinese morphological awareness and construction and the
Raven’s Progressive Matrices in English. In order to assess the extent to which
phonemic awareness explained variability in English vocabulary knowledge,
regression analyses were conducted. The results showed that English phonemic
awareness explained unique variance in English vocabulary as well as onset deletion
in English. These results suggest that in learning English as a second language,
sensitivity to English phonology facilitates acquiring new vocabulary in English.
The authors recommend that training in phonemic awareness may aid in learning the
vocabulary of a second language.
In a longitudinal study, de Jong and van der Leij (1999) explored how the
various phonological abilities influence reading achievement. One hundred and
sixty-six students were followed from their first year in kindergarten to the end of
second grade. Students were recruited from four major cities in the Netherlands.
The students were individually administered block design, figural exclusion,
receptive vocabulary, productive vocabulary, rhyme categorization, first-sound
categorization, last sound categorization, word span, interference span, nonword
repetition, rapid naming, receptive and productive letter knowledge, word and
nonword decoding speed, and addition and subtraction calculation speed.

47. 38
The authors conducted hierarchical regression analyses to determine the
specific contribution of phonological abilities to reading acquisition. The results
demonstrated that rapid naming was not strongly correlated to phonological
awareness and phonological coding. Furthermore, the authors found that rapid
naming, in isolation, impacted later reading achievement in kindergarten. After a
few additional months of reading instruction, phonological awareness and working
memory contributed to subsequent reading achievement. In first and second grade,
rapid naming also had an independent effect on further reading acquisition. These
findings highlight the difference and importance of being able to access information.
Overall, during the first year of reading acquisition, the contribution of phonological
abilities on reading achievement increased and then continued to contribute from
first grade on.
Manis et al. (1999) found similar results in their study investigating rapid
naming in the prediction of reading skills from first grade to second grade. The
authors recruited 85 students from two public elementary schools in a suburb of Los
Angeles. The children represented the full range of reading abilities at the schools.
They were tested with a battery of tests in the spring of first grade and the spring of
second grade. The tests included word identification, vocabulary, rapid naming,
phonological awareness, orthographic skill, and exception word reading. Using
regression analyses, the authors found that rapid naming and phonemic awareness
accounted for independent variance in reading scores.
Moreover, the authors found that rapid naming was predictive of reading
achievement. Several findings such as these prompted Wolf and Bowers (1999) to

48. 39
review the literature to determine whether or not an alternate explanation to dyslexia
was necessary. The authors established that naming speed and phonemic awareness
are mutually exclusive regarding their influence on reading acquisition. From these
findings, the authors founded the double deficit hypothesis, which underscores that
problems with reading stem from a student struggling with phonemic awareness and
naming speed.
Gathercole and Baddeley (1989) found evidence of a connection between
phonological memory and vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, Gathercole and
Baddeley (1990) investigated the plausibility of a causal relationship between
phonological memory and vocabulary acquisition. The authors divided the 118 five-
and six-year-olds into two groups: low repetition and high repetition. The nonword
repetition test was created to provide a more simple test of immediate memory skills
that was developmentally appropriate for preschool and early school age children.
The test included 40 nonwords with equal numbers of one, two, three, and four
syllable items. Group membership was determined by the number of correct
repetitions. Twenty children from the low repetition and 20 children from the high
repetition group were chosen. The children in the two groups were matched as
closely as possible using the scores from their performance on the Raven’s
Progressive Coloured Matrices.
Once the groups were determined, the children participated in two learning
sessions. The task in each session was to learn the labels randomly assigned to toy
monsters that were unfamiliar to the children. The toys were divided into two sets,
A and B with two sets of labels, names and non-names. The names consisted of two

49. 40
syllables since the children performed best on the two syllable nonwords in the
nonword repetition test. One half of the children in each group received the A toys
and the other halves received the B toys as well as one half learning names with the
toys and the other halves learning non-names to the first set of toys. In the second
learning session, the children learned with the other toys and names. The children
were taught each name with the toy. On the recall task, the children were tested until
they correctly named all four toys on two successive trials or to the maximum of 15.
The children then were tested on the names of the toys 24 hours later.
An ANOVA was conducted on the mean number of trials as a function of
group and label type. The high repetition group learned more quickly and learned
names more quickly than non-names. In addition, the high repetition children were
faster at learning non-names than the low repetition group. The results show support
for the notion that phonological memory skills contribute to the long term
acquisition of unfamiliar phonological material. The authors also performed
regression analyses to determine whether or not vocabulary and reading scores
accounted for the differences in performance between the high and low group. The
results showed that vocabulary and reading differences across the groups accounted
for the differences in learning speed for non-names and name labels.
One final statistical procedure was performed to further assess that learning
speed differences were not influenced by group differences. The ANCOVA also
supported the independence of learning speed. Regarding the delayed memory
recall, the high repetition group scored significantly higher than the low repetition
group. Names were also retained better than non-names. The authors caution,

50. 41
however, that the difference in retention between the high and low groups may also
reflect the level of initial learning. Overall, these results show the long term
retention of new vocabulary material was more difficult for the children in the low
repetition group suggesting that phonological memory plays a role in long term
phonological learning. The authors concluded that their research shows causal
evidence for nonword ability, rather than vocabulary knowledge or reading
knowledge, contributing to the learning of new vocabulary. Further research shows
support for phonological memory significantly predicting vocabulary knowledge
(Baddeley et al., 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole et al., 1992).
Furthermore, researchers discovered that phonological memory significantly
affects second language acquisition (Cheung, 1996; Service, 1992; Swanson et al.,
2004). Service (1992) assessed working memory and investigated its relationship to
foreign language learning. Forty-four students, aged nine to ten years old, learning
English as a second language from a Finnish primary school participated in the
research study. Students were administered 10 pseudowords: five reflected Finnish
phonology and phonotactics and the remaining five reflected English sounding
pseudowords which were created by switching the first and last syllables of real
English words. Half of the list had two syllables and the remaining half consisted of
four syllables. The subjects participated in four test sessions. The subjects received
one Finnish list and one English list in each session with half hearing the Finnish list
first and the other half the English list first. Scores were obtained by rating the
number of syllables that had been correctly repeated. English proficiency was
obtained from the teacher completing an overall rating that is used for Finnish school

51. 42
reports. The authors found a significant correlation between the accuracy of English
pseudoword pronunciation and learning English as a second language. In addition,
the regression analyses showed that the repetition task accounted for a large portion
of variation and was a significant predictor of learning English as a second language.
Cheung (1996) expanded on the previous research to determine if
phonological memory facilitated the learning of second language vocabulary,
specifically. The author recruited 84 seventh-grade students in Hong Kong learning
English as a second language. The students were administered the Crichton
Vocabulary Scale as a measure of English vocabulary, four passages and questions
to measure English reading comprehension, Advanced Progressive Matrices,
nonword span test consisting of 62 two-syllable nonwords reflecting English
phonology, and a simple word span consisting of 62 two-syllable English words.
The number of vocabulary learning trials was recorded for each student in learning
three English words by learning both the English pronunciation and Cantonese
translation of each word. For training, students were shown the English word on a
flash card. The investigator stated aloud the English pronunciation and Cantonese
translation. The students had to repeat both the English pronunciation and
Cantonese translation. Training was repeated until the students did not produce any
errors when the set of three words was presented to them. The final number for the
learning trials equaled the trial number at which training stopped minus three.
The author used multiple regression to analyze the data. The results showed
the nonword span was a significant predictor of the number of vocabulary learning
trials. To investigate the relationships between phonological memory and long-term

52. 43
phonological knowledge, long-term phonological knowledge was represented as the
students’ English vocabulary scores. The students were split into a high vocabulary
(high long-term phonological knowledge) group and low vocabulary (low
phonological knowledge) group. For the low vocabulary/low long-term
phonological knowledge subgroup, nonword span account for significant variance in
vocabulary learning. As expected, a significant contribution was not found in the
high vocabulary/high phonological knowledge group which suggests a shift from the
utilization of phonological memory for vocabulary acquisition to utilization of
long-term knowledge for vocabulary acquisition in more proficient students. The
author concludes that phonological memory is linked to word learning in a second
language.
Overall, research supports the influential role of the various phonological
processing skills (phonemic awareness, phonological/rapid naming, and
phonological memory) on vocabulary knowledge among native English speaking
children (Avons et al., 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole et al., 1999; Gathercole et al.,
1992; McBride-Chang et al., 2005; Metsala, 1999). Such support led Bowey (2001)
to propose the notion that a comprehensive phonological processing construct would
adequately explicate vocabulary knowledge in young children. In order to reflect the
developmental aspects of reading, word reading was measured as a representation of
students’ decoding or phonological processing abilities.
Summary
The literature review above discussed the research on second language
acquisition, self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word

53. 44
reading. The review focused on the role self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy
plays in academic outcomes, the influence word reading and native language
vocabulary have on second language vocabulary knowledge, and the processes
involved in second language acquisition. Based on the self-efficacy literature,
beliefs a student has regarding how well they can perform in school and the accuracy
of their judgment significantly influences their academic outcomes. Specifically,
the accuracy of and the beliefs students hold regarding how well they can derive the
meaning of a word may mediate and significantly influence their performance on
vocabulary knowledge. Regarding word reading, research supports the influential
role of the various phonological processing skills (phonemic awareness,
phonological/rapid naming, and phonological memory) in acquiring English
vocabulary. In order to reflect the developmental aspects of reading, word reading
was assessed as a representation of students’ phonological processing abilities.
Research concerning native language resources showed that the skills a person
possesses in his or her native language are transferable to a second language. In
addition, affective variables strongly influence the acquisition of a second language.
In light of suggestions for future research, the present study investigated the
influence of native language vocabulary knowledge on second language vocabulary
knowledge as well the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on the
relationship between native and second language vocabulary.

54. 45
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The aim of this study was to explore how self-efficacy and accuracy of
self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge in a second language mediated the
relationship of word reading in a second language and vocabulary knowledge in
a native language to vocabulary knowledge in a second language. Eighty
participants were necessary for the study, and all participants completed five
measures.
Participants
A minimum of 20 subjects per predictor has been typically recommended to
provide adequate statistical power in regression analyses (Miles & Shevlin, 2005).
As such, a minimum number of 60 subjects was needed for analyses in this study. In
order to determine the optimal number of subjects needed for this study, a power
analysis was conducted. In order to perform the power analysis, the following
information was used: the number of predictors, the significance level being used
(alpha), the effect size, and the appropriate level of power. For this study, the
following was used: three was the number of predictors, .05 was the alpha level, .13
was the effect size (medium effect size), and the power was .80 (Cohen, 1987; Miles

55. 46
& Shevlin, 2005). Therefore, the optimal sample size was 80 and the optimal sample
size of 80 was obtained.
The participants consisted of second-grade intermediate and advanced English
language learners whose native language is Spanish. The participants were from five
elementary schools in New York City in areas of low socioeconomic status. English
language learning status was determined by the district’s method and criteria
consisting of information obtained on the Home Language Survey, performance on
the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test
(NYSESLAT), and academic performance. There were 49 females and 31 males.
The mean age was 8 years, and all participants were Hispanic.
Second-grade students were chosen as participants for this study based on
Chapman and Tunmer’s (1997) finding that the interaction between self-perceptions
and early reading skills and reading performance began to occur during second and
third grade. In addition, Wilson & Trainin (2007) discovered that relatively few
studies incorporate students in kindergarten through second grade when investigating
the effects of self-efficacy. In addition, numerous studies investigating basic early
reading skills incorporate students in pre-kindergarten through second grade,
including ELLs, since early reading skills such as word reading are most predictive
of reading achievement in these grades and early intervention is emphasized.
Measures
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4)
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) Form B was
used to assess the students’ second language vocabulary knowledge. The PPVT-4 is

56. 47
a norm-referenced test used for measuring the receptive (hearing) vocabulary of
children and adults. Enlarged and colorized, this PPVT edition is available in two
forms (Form A and Form B) that are administered individually. Each form contains
training items and 228 test items where each item consists of four full-color pictures
as response options on a page. For each item, the examiner says a word, and the
examinee responds by selecting the picture that best illustrates that word’s meaning.
The items cover 20 categories of content and parts of speech. Three-fourths of the
items are from the previous edition (PPVT-III) and one-fourth is new. Many easier
items were added to improve measurement of low-functioning preschool-age
children. Items were reviewed and empirically analyzed for difficulty, validity
(discrimination), and freedom from bias with respect to sex, ethnicity, geographic
region, and SES. All illustrations were evaluated to ensure they could be perceived
by individuals with color blindness. The two forms are closely matched in item
content and difficulty (Dunn & Dunn, 2007).
Standard scores, percentiles, normal curve equivalents (NCEs), and stanines
are provided. The test also provides age equivalents and grade equivalents. The
age-norm and grade-norm samples were designed to resemble the English proficient
population from ages two years and six months to 90+, and closely match the 2004
Census data for demographic variables. The age norm sample ranged in ages from
two years and six months to 90 years and older, and the grade norm sample range
from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Internal consistency and reliability scores are as
follows: (a) by age: Split-Half Form A is .94 and Split-Half Form B is .94 and (b)
by grade: Split-Half Form A is .95 and Split-Half Form B is .94. The alternate-form

57. 48
reliability is .89 by age, and the test-retest reliability is .93 by age (Dunn & Dunn,
2007). By age and grade refers to an average across those included in the norm.
Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP)
The Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) was used to assess
students’ native language vocabulary knowledge. It is an efficient measure of
Spanish vocabulary based on the widely used PPVT-R. The TVIP contains 125
translated items to assess the vocabulary of Spanish-speaking and bilingual students
from ages two and a half to 18 years. Items were carefully selected through rigorous
item analysis for their universality and appropriateness to Spanish-speaking
communities. The TVIP is easy to administer and score and does not require
reading, verbal, or written responses. To administer an item, simply show a plate in
the test easel and say a corresponding stimulus word. The student responds by
pointing to one of the pictures. The manual is available in English and Spanish.
Norms are available for both combined and separate Mexican and Puerto Rican
standardization samples (Dunn, Hugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1986).
The norming sample consisted of monolingual, Spanish-speaking students in
Latin America with 1,219 children from public schools in Mexico and 1,488 children
from Puerto Rico. To correct for unevenness of socioeconomic status (SES)
representation, a weighting system was used to increase or decrease the contributions
of each individual's score at each age, so as to fit the SES ratios established by the
U.S. census statistics. The internal consistency reliability (split-half reliability),
corrected using the Spearman-Brown formula, is .93. For the concurrent validity,
the correlations ranged from .25 to .59 between scores on the TVIP and the

58. 49
Kaufmann-ABC Global Scales and from .28 to .69 between the TVIP and the
Kaufman-ABC Achievement Scale Subtests among children from ages three to six.
The correlation between TVIP and the Habilidad General Ability test was .44 among
children attending an urban private school in Puerto Rico (Dunn et al., 1986).
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised-Normative Update (WRMTRNU)
The students’ second language word reading was measured using the
Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests which requires
the subject to read aloud isolated words that appear in large type on the subject pages
in the test easel. This subtest was used as a test of word-decoding skills. The test
provides thorough coverage of reading readiness, basic skills, and comprehension
and is individually administered. It consists of two forms and tests a wide age range
from young children to older adults (5–75). Based on a national sampling of over
3,000 people, WRMT-R provides accurate score comparisons for reading decoding
and reading comprehension with the other achievement batteries with which it was
conormed: K-TEA/NU and PIAT-R/NU. The test provides standard scores, NCEs,
grade equivalents, age equivalents, Relative Performance Indexes, percentile ranks,
and confidence bands at 68% and 90% confidence levels. The internal reliability is
as follows: Split-half Tests are .91 (range: .68 to .98), Clusters are .95 (range: .87 to
.98), and Total is .97 (range: .86–.99) (Woodcock, 1998).
Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure
A review of the literature did not yield an established measure of self-efficacy
for vocabulary knowledge in a second language. The measure of self-efficacy for

59. 50
vocabulary knowledge is based on the measurements found in the research literature
concerning the self-efficacy of math performance (Schunk, 1981, 1982, 1996;
Schunk & Rice, 1993) and the self-efficacy of reading and writing (Shell et al.,
1995). Based on the research literature, this measure was developed and
pilot tested by the author. The measure was pilot tested on 12 ELLs to ensure
variability of results and appropriateness of directions, words, and questions. The
pilot data revealed that there was variability in the results regarding subjects
choosing among options 1, 2, and 3 from the Likert scale. In addition, pilot testing
revealed that the directions and questions had to be adjusted to better convey the
purpose of the measure for the subjects’ developmental level. Lastly, it was found
that the subjects knew a majority of the words. As such, more difficult words were
added. Thirty-six vocabulary words were chosen from the PPVT-4 Form A. The
test is a Likert scale ranging from one to three. Students were asked to tell the
examiner if they thought they knew the meaning of the word based on a three point
scale (1 = not good; 2 = kind of/little good; 3 = really/a lot good). Careful
instructions were given to ensure the students knew the scale direction. The students
were also given practice items. The test was individually administered. Items were
presented in random order of difficulty to avoid test fatigue. Self-efficacy scores
were computed by calculating the mean score on all 36 items as indicated in the
research above.
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy
The accuracy of self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge in a second language
was determined by administering the PPVT-4 items that make-up the self-efficacy

60. 51
measure to ascertain whether or not the participants knew the words. The accuracy
scores were calculated based on procedures suggested by Pajares and Graham
(1999). First, the bias for each item was calculated. To calculate bias, each correct
answer was scored as 3 and each incorrect answer as 1. These 1 and 3 scores
correspond to the self-efficacy scores from 1 to 3. For example, a subject who
expresses “not good” (1) regarding describing a word and does not know the word
on the PPVT (1) will receive a bias score of 0 (1 – 1 = 0). Alternately, a subject who
expresses “not good” (1) and who answers the PPVT correctly (3) will receive a bias
score of −2, indicating under confidence. Thus, bias scores ranged from −2 to +2.
To calculate accuracy, the absolute value of each bias score was subtracted from 2
(maximum amount of judgment error). Thus, accuracy scores ranged from 0
(complete inaccuracy) to 2 (complete accuracy). For data analyses, the mean
accuracy score on all 36 items was calculated.
Ethical Considerations with Human Subjects
The present study was conducted under the approval of Fordham
University’s and New York City’s Internal Review Board (IRB). The Proposal
Review Committee from New York City reviewed the study according to the study’s
purpose, procedure, design, and ethical treatment of human subjects. This review
process ensured that the study adhered to IRB standards and ethical guidelines, and
New York City’s specifications.
Written consent (Appendix A) was obtained from principals and parents and
verbal assent from child participants. Written consent forms explained the research
study’s purpose, procedures, risks and benefits, confidentiality, withdrawal

61. 52
procedures, and contact numbers for further information. The written consent form
informed each potential participant that there were no repercussions for not
participating in the study and that participation was voluntary. Child assent to
participate in the study was obtained by the researcher. Each child was informed that
he or she could withdraw from the study at any time. Data collected in this study
were kept confidential, with the exception of the researcher who had access to data
and participants. Each participant received an identification number to protect
his/her identity. All test protocols and data were kept locked in a file cabinet.
Procedures
Applications to Fordham’s Institutional Review Board and New York City’s
Proposal Review Committee were submitted to obtain approval to conduct the study.
Committees from Fordham and New York City reviewed the study according to the
study’s purpose, procedure, design, and ethical treatment of human subjects. Once
IRB approval was obtained from Fordham and New York City, approval was
obtained from the principals of the schools to participate. After approval was
received, the researcher sent consent forms home to the parents/guardians with the
student. When a sufficient number of parental/guardian permission forms were
received, the researcher obtained the level of English proficiency of the students
based on the district’s criteria.
A native Spanish speaking bilingual graduate assistant was used to help
administer the measures for this study, especially the TVIP. There was a training
session prior to starting the study in order to insure the quality of administration,
standardization of administration, and confidentiality. The researcher discussed the

62. 53
details of the study with the assistant, practiced administering the measures, and
discussed the confidentiality of participants’ responses.
Once participants had been identified, they met individually with the research
or graduate assistant and the following measures were administered in one day to the
students during school hours: Word Identification, TVIP, PPVT, and the
self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy measures. The measures were
administered in the following order: Word Identification, Self-Efficacy, Accuracy of
Self-Efficacy, TVIP, and PPVT, with the TVIP and PPVT being counterbalanced.
Administration of these measures took approximately 35 minutes. Directions and,
where appropriate, items for each measure were read aloud to the children to ensure
that their reading ability did not affect their answers. When all of the data were
collected, the data were scored, entered into SPSS and AMOS, and analyses were
performed.
Statistical Analyses
SPSS and AMOS 18 were used to analyze the data obtained from this study.
To test the hypotheses, path analyses were performed to explore direct effects of
second language (English) word reading and native language (Spanish) vocabulary
knowledge on second language (English) vocabulary knowledge and how
self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy mediated the relationship of English word
reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge by
examining the data and determining if the model matched the data.

63. 54
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The overall purpose of the study was to determine the influence of
self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on vocabulary knowledge in a second
language as mediators of the relationship between word reading in a second
language and vocabulary knowledge in a native language to vocabulary
knowledge in a second language. Specifically, path analyses were performed to
explore direct effects of English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge on
English vocabulary knowledge and how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy
of English vocabulary knowledge mediated the relationship of English word reading
and Spanish vocabulary knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge. There were
three predictors per model: English word reading, Spanish vocabulary knowledge,
and English self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy, where accuracy of
self-efficacy replaced self-efficacy in the second model. The outcome variable was
English vocabulary knowledge. This section begins with a description of
pre-analysis data screening and description of means, standard deviations, and
correlations among the main constructs used in this study. The final section contains
the results addressing the research questions and hypotheses.

64. 55
Pre-Analysis Data Screening
Prior to conducting analyses, the assumptions for a path analysis were
examined. Data were screened for univariate and multivariate outliers and
multicollinearity, and tested for violations of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity. Univariate outliers were determined by examining skewness,
kurtosis, and histograms as well as calculating the z-score for each variable. The
z-score was calculated by dividing the skewness statistic by the Standard Error of
skewness. If the z-score exceeded plus or minus three, the variable was analyzed to
determine if a transformation was needed. Among English word reading, Spanish
vocabulary, self-efficacy, and accuracy of self-efficacy, English word reading was
the only variable significantly skewed (z = −3.49). As a result, the variable was
transformed using the square root method. In an effort to understand the impact of
the transformation, the analyses were conducted twice with and without the
transformed variable. Because the results were the same, the untransformed variable
was kept in order to facilitate the interpretation.
There were no multivariate outliers as determined by the Mahalanobis
distance. No cases exceeded the χ2
critical value of 16.266, df = 3, p < .001. The
variance inflation factor, tolerance, and condition index values from a regression
analysis were examined to evaluate multicollinearity among variables.
Multicollinearity among variables was not evident because variance inflation factor
was less than 10, the tolerance was greater than .10, and the condition index was less
than 30. Linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity were determined by examining
the residuals. The residuals were calculated by subtracting the predicted scores from

65. 56
the observed scores resulting in a mean of zero. Linearity, normality, and
homoscedasticity were not violated as evidenced by the scatterplot matrix (see
Figure 3). The residuals are randomly distributed around zero, there are not more
on one side or the other, and there is no curvilinear or cone shaped pattern. The
results show that the data were linear, normally distributed, and there was
homoscedasticity.
Figure 3. Scatterplot for English Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, Self-Efficacy,
and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy.
Descriptive Statistics
All participants were Hispanic, all were in second grade, and there were 49
females and 31 males. The average age of the 80 participants was 8 years (SD =
0.41). Descriptive statistics were calculated for English word reading, Spanish
vocabulary, self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary (see
Table 1). The following were the skewness statistics: English word reading (−.83,
SD = 10.15), Spanish vocabulary (.09, SD = 14.09), self-efficacy (.03, SD = 0.28),

66. 57
accuracy of self-efficacy (.02, SD = 0.21), and English vocabulary (.01, SD = 8.28).
For English word reading, Spanish vocabulary, and English vocabulary, standard
scores were reported. Regarding self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy, a score
of 1 or 0, 2 or 1, and 3 or 2, respectively, were labeled as low, moderate and high.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for
Independent and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 80)
Measure M SD Range Skewness SE
English Word Reading* 100.70 10.15 73.00–122.00 −.83 .27
Spanish Vocabulary TVIP* 85.59 14.09 52.00–127.00 .09 .27
English Vocabulary PPVT-B*
Self-Efficacy**
82.01
2.27
8.28 61.00–99.00 .01 .27
0.28 1.56–2.89 −.32 .27
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy** 1.31 0.21 .61–1.78 −.41 .27
Age in years 7.98 0.41 7.25–9.25 .74 .27
* Standard Score. ** raw score
Descriptive analyses were also conducted on information related to accuracy
of self-efficacy in order to provide more information about the sample. The data for
bias, number of accurate items, number of correct items and number of incorrect
items are presented in Table 2. Bias refers to the degree of confidence. The
potential minimum and maximum range of values were from −2 to 2 with lower
scores indicating underconfidence and higher scores indicating overconfidence. The
number of accurate items represents the total items the participants answered
correctly on the vocabulary test created from items on the PPVT-A that they
expressed they felt they knew well on the corresponding self-efficacy measure and
the items they answered incorrectly that they felt they did not know well. Incorrect

67. 58
and correct items refer to questions they answered right and wrong on the vocabulary
test using the same vocabulary test created from the PPVT-A.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for
Variables Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 80)
Measure M SD Range Skewness SE
Bias
Accurate Judgment
−.19
25.24
0.34 −1.17–.61 −.33 .27
4.62 8.00–33.00 −.78 .27
Incorrect Items
Correct Items
9.58
26.43
4.69 2.00–23.00 .66 .27
4.69 13.00–34.00 −.66 .27
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for
Independent and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 74)
Measure M SD Range Skewness SE
English Word Reading* 102.19 8.94 73.00–122.00 −.98 .28
Spanish Vocabulary TVIP* 87.19 13.24 59.00–127.00 .15 .28
English Vocabulary PPVT-B*
Self-Efficacy**
82.81
2.28
7.81 64.00–99.00 .18 .28
0.29 1.56–2.89 −.37 .28
Accuracy of Self-Efficacy** 1.32 0.21 .61–1.78 −.48 .28
Age in years 7.93 0.38 7.25–9.25 .88 .28
* Standard Score. ** raw score
Upon examining the data, it was determined that there were six cases that
needed to be excluded from the analyses that were lower than one standard deviation
from the mean on English word reading and Spanish vocabulary. The descriptive
statistics for the 74 participants that were used in all remaining analyses are