A Preliminary Version of an Internet-Based Picture Naming Test


The study presents a web-based productive vocabulary assessment tool, the internet Picture Naming Test (iPNT). The iPNT is administered online and takes eight minutes to complete. The iPNT assesses vocabulary knowledge by rating participants’ responses to 120 colored drawings of simple objects. Participants type the names of the objects and the names are saved as a computer file that can be uploaded into statistical software for further processing. The test is rated by comparing participants’ responses against a list of correct labels. High test-retest reliability suggests that iPNT can be considered a reliable measure. The study evaluates convergent validity of the iPNT by comparing its scores with paper-based and oral versions of the same test and concurrent validity by comparing its scores with that of receptive Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, a language aptitude Cloze test, standard admission Test of English as a Foreign Language, and DIALANG diagnostic tool. Highly significant correlations between the scores on these tests and iPNT scores suggest that the latter is a suitable assessment tool for language proficiency. However, the moderate correlation values ranging from .52 to .68 indicate that the use of this test should be limited to psychometric research assessing an individual’s productive vocabulary knowledge.

Share and Cite:

Kharkhurin, A. (2012). A Preliminary Version of an Internet-Based Picture Naming Test. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 34-41. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2012.21005.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Alderson, J. C., & Huhta, A. (2005). The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22, 301-320. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt310oa
[2] Baldauf, R. B., & Propst, I. K. (1979). Matching and multiple-choice cloze tests. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 321-326.
[3] Briere, E. J., Clausing, G., Senko, D., & Purcell, E. (1978). A look at cloze testing across languages and levels. Modern Language Journal, 62, 23-26.
[4] Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Ku?era and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
[5] Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
[6] Chapelle, C. A. (2006). DIALANG: A diagnostic language test in 14 European languages. Language Testing, 23, 544-550. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt341xx
[7] Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Darnell, D. K. (1968). The development of an English language proficiency test of foreign students, using a clozentropy procedure (No. Bureau No. BR-7-H-OlO). Boulder, CO: Colorado University.
[9] Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary TestIV. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
[10] Dupuis, M. M. (1980). The cloze procedure as a predictor of comprehension in literature. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 27-33.
[11] ETS. (2005). TOEFL? internet-based test: Score comparison tables. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[12] ETS. (2008a). Reliability and comparability of TOEFL? iBT scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[13] ETS. (2008b). TOEFL iBT and PBT: A comparison. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[14] Jochems, W., & Montens, F. (1987). De multiple-choice cloze-toets als algemene taalvaardigheidstoets. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 12, 133-143.
[15] Jongsma, E. A. (1980). Cloze instruction research: A second look. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
[16] Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston naming test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
[17] Kharkhurin, A. V. (2005). On the possible relationships between bilingualism, biculturalism and creativity: A cognitive perspective. Unpublished Dissertation, New York: City University of New York.
[18] Kharkhurin, A. V. (2008). The effect of linguistic proficiency, age of second language acquisition, and length of exposure to a new cultural environment on bilinguals’ divergent thinking. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 225-243.
[19] Kharkhurin, A. V. (2011). The role of selective attention in bilingual creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 239-254. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.595979
[20] Ku?era, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
[21] Lemmon, C. R., & Goggin, J. P. (1989). The measurement of bilingualism and its relationship to cognitive ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 133-155. doi:10.1017/S0142716400008493
[22] Mari?n, P., Mampaey, E., Vervaet, A., Saerens, J., & De Deyn, P. P. (1998). Normative Data for the Boston Naming Test in Native Dutch-Speaking Belgian Elderly. Brain and Language, 65, 447-467. doi:10.1006/brln.1998.2000
[23] Oller, J. W. Jr. (1972). Scoring methods and difficulty levels for cloze tests of proficiency in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 56, 151-158. doi:10.2307/324037
[24] Oller, J. W. Jr. (1973). Cloze tests of second language proficiency and what they measure. Language Learning, 23, 105-118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00100.x
[25] Oller, J. W. Jr., & Conrad, C. A. (1971). The cloze technique and ESL proficiency. Language Learning, 21, 183-195. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1971.tb00057.x
[26] Padilla, A. M., & Ruiz, R. A. (1973). Latino mental health: A review of literature. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
[27] Patricacou, A., Psallida, E., Pring, T., & Dipper, L. (2007). The Boston naming test in Greek: Normative data and the effects of age and education on naming. Aphasiology, 21, 1157-1170. doi:10.1080/02687030600670643
[28] Peterson, J., Peters, N., & Paradis, E. (1972). Validation of the cloze procedure as a measure of readability with high school, trade school, and college populations. In F. B. Greene (Ed.), Investigations Relating to mature readers, twenty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 45-50). Milwaukee: The National Reading Conference, Inc.
[29] Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217-236. doi:10.1068/p5117
[30] Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
[31] Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174-215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
[32] Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
[33] Williams, K. T. (2001). Group Reading Assessment And Diagnostic Evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
[34] Williams, K. T. (2007). Expressive Vocabulary Test (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
[35] Zhang, Y. (2008). Repeater analyses for TOEFL? iBT (ETS Research Memorandum No. RM.08-05). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.