Distributional effects and individual differences in L2 morphology learning

Second language (L2) learning outcomes may depend on the structure of the input and learners’ cognitive abilities. This study tested whether less predictable input might facilitate learning and generalization of L2 morphology while evaluating contributions of statistical learning ability, nonverbal intelligence, phonological short-term memory, and verbal working memory. Over three sessions, 54 adults were exposed to a Russian case-marking paradigm with a balanced or skewed item distribution in the input. Whereas statistical learning ability and nonverbal intelligence predicted learning of trained items, only nonverbal intelligence also predicted generalization of case-marking inflections to new vocabulary. Neither measure of temporary storage capacity predicted learning. Balanced, less predictable input was associated with higher accuracy in generalization but only in the initial test session. These results suggest that individual differences in pattern extraction play a more sustained role in L2 acquisition than instructional manipulations that vary the predictability of lexical items in the input.

Performance of protective factors assessment in risk prediction for adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Protective factors are neglected in risk assessment in adult psychiatric and criminal justice populations. This review investigated the predictive efficacy of selected tools that assess protective factors. Five databases were searched using comprehensive terms for records up to June 2014, resulting in 17 studies (n = 2,198). Results were combined in a multilevel meta-analysis using the R (R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015) metafor package (Viechtbauer, Journal of Statistical Software, 2010, 36, 1). Prediction of outcomes was poor relative to a reference category of violent offending, with the exception of prediction of discharge from secure units. There were no significant differences between the predictive efficacy of risk scales, protective scales, and summary judgments. Protective factor assessment may be clinically useful, but more development is required. Claims that use of these tools is therapeutically beneficial require testing.