Morphological Awareness in TOEIC Word-Form Questions: An Item-Type Analysis of EFL Learners' Performance and Perceptions

Morphological Awareness in TOEIC Word-Form Questions: An Item-Type Analysis of EFL Learners' Performance and Perceptions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Morphological Awareness in TOEIC Word-Form Questions: An Item-Type Analysis of EFL Learners' Performance and Perceptions Seongeun Cho, Dongmi Kim, Jieun Lee This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9324392/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Morphological awareness plays an important role in second and foreign language reading and vocabulary development. However, relatively little empirical research has examined how learners perform on different types of morphological items in standardized English proficiency tests such as the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). The present study investigates EFL learners' performance across morphological item types on a TOEIC-style word-form test and examines the relationship between test performance and self-reported reading confidence. A total of 277 university students in South Korea completed a 30-item TOEIC-style morphological test alongside a background survey. The test demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .882). Results showed that noun items yielded the highest accuracy rate (66.3%), while participial and comparative forms were most difficult (44.4%). A one-way ANOVA confirmed significant differences across item types, F(4, 1380) = 40.05, p < .001. Spearman's rank-order correlation revealed a significant positive association between reading confidence and test scores (ρ = .278, p < .001). The findings underscore the importance of explicit morphological instruction in TOEIC preparation and EFL pedagogy more broadly. morphological awareness TOEIC word-form items EFL language assessment Korea reading confidence Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Background The Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) is among the most widely used standardized English proficiency assessments in academic and professional contexts, particularly in East Asia (Chapelle and Douglas 2006). Part 5 of the TOEIC Reading section, which focuses on sentence completion, has attracted considerable attention due to its emphasis on grammatical accuracy and lexical form selection. Although these items are commonly categorized as grammar or vocabulary questions in preparation materials, many Part 5 items fundamentally require morphological awareness: the ability to recognize and select appropriate word forms based on morphological relationships (Carlisle 2000; Koda 2005). Despite the acknowledged importance of morphological awareness in language learning, few empirical studies have examined how EFL learners perform across different morphological item types in TOEIC-style tasks, and fewer still have explored the relationship between learners' actual performance and their self-perceived reading proficiency. Mismatches between perceived competence and actual ability may influence study strategies and learning outcomes (Bransford et al. 2000), making this relationship important to understand. The present study addresses these gaps by analyzing 277 Korean university students' performance on a TOEIC-style morphological test and examining associations with self-reported reading confidence. The following research questions are addressed: RQ1. How do EFL learners perform across different morphological item types in TOEIC-style word-form questions? RQ2. Which morphological forms are most challenging for learners? RQ3. How is self-reported reading confidence related to morphological test performance? Morphological awareness in EFL learning Morphological awareness refers to learners' ability to recognize, analyze, and manipulate morphemes within words (Carlisle 2000). It supports vocabulary development and reading comprehension by allowing learners to understand relationships between words sharing common roots and affixes (Nagy et al. 2006). In foreign language contexts, morphological awareness facilitates the processing of unfamiliar vocabulary and the recognition of word families (Koda 2005). Learners with stronger morphological awareness are better able to infer meanings of novel words and handle complex sentence structures (Schmitt and Zimmerman 2002; Zhang and Koda 2012). Morphological awareness encompasses derivational knowledge (how affixes change word class and meaning), inflectional knowledge (grammatical variations), and syntactic awareness (how word class interacts with sentence structure). Kieffer and Lesaux (2008) demonstrated that these components contribute independently to reading comprehension, underscoring their collective importance for academic language proficiency. Morphological items in standardized tests In standardized English tests such as the TOEIC, sentence completion items frequently require learners to select the morphologically appropriate word form based on syntactic and semantic cues. Purpura (2004) argues that such items necessarily involve the interaction between grammatical and lexical knowledge. Alderson (2000) similarly notes that vocabulary knowledge in testing contexts frequently overlaps with morphological processing. Accordingly, TOEIC word-form items can be understood as assessments of morphological awareness rather than purely grammatical or lexical knowledge. Research has identified variation in item difficulty depending on morphological category. Items requiring participial or adverbial forms tend to be more challenging for EFL learners than items involving common noun or verb forms (Schmitt and Zimmerman 2002). However, empirical studies examining TOEIC Part 5 items systematically across multiple morphological categories remain scarce. A notable exception is a prior study ([Author(s), 2025]), which analyzed score patterns across TOEIC Part 5 sub-types among Korean EFL learners and found that morphological knowledge was the strongest predictor of overall TOEIC scores, accounting for a greater proportion of variance than vocabulary knowledge alone. That study established that morphological competence plays a central role in TOEIC Part 5 performance; however, it did not examine which specific morphological item types posed the greatest difficulty, nor did it explore the relationship between learner confidence and morphological performance. The present study addresses these gaps by providing an item-type-level analysis of morphological accuracy and its association with self-reported reading confidence. Learner perceptions and test performance Self-efficacy, defined as an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish a specific task, has been shown to predict language test performance (Bandura 1997). Grabe (2009) found that learners who perceive themselves as confident readers tend to score higher on standardized assessments, although the relationship is moderated by actual proficiency. The present study extends this research by examining whether self-reported reading confidence predicts performance on a morphology-focused test. Methods Participants The participants were 277 undergraduate students enrolled in required English courses at two universities in South Korea: Suwon Science College and Woosong University (174 female, 62.8%; 103 male, 37.2%). Participants were drawn from multiple departments including aviation tourism, railway engineering, food science, physical therapy, and computer science, among others. The majority (n = 201, 72.6%) reported three or fewer years of English study. All participants were native Korean speakers learning English as a foreign language. Participation was voluntary and all participants provided informed consent. Instruments Morphological awareness test A 30-item morphological awareness test modeled on TOEIC Part 5 was administered. According to ETS (2016), Part 5 of the TOEIC Listening and Reading Test consists of 30 incomplete sentences, each accompanied by four answer choices (A–D), from which test takers must select the word or phrase that best completes the sentence. Word-form questions, in which all four options are derivationally related forms of the same base word, constitute a major item type within this section (e.g., A: complication, B: complicates, C: complicate, D: complicated). The items in the present test were developed in strict accordance with this format: each item presented an incomplete sentence requiring participants to select the appropriate word form based on the syntactic and semantic context. All items were constructed using a word-family approach, in which each set of four answer options consisted of derivationally related forms of a common base word (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, and adverb forms derived from the same root). This design was intended to assess learners' ability to recognize and apply appropriate morphological forms in context, rather than relying on isolated vocabulary knowledge or guessing based on unfamiliar lexical items. To capture a meaningful range of morphological awareness across learners of varying proficiency levels, items were purposefully designed across three difficulty levels (high, medium, and low) with reference to the TOEIC Listening and Reading Score Descriptors (ETS 2024). According to these descriptors, lower-proficiency readers (around score 150–250) can understand common rule-based grammatical structures and easy vocabulary but struggle with difficult or uncommon grammatical constructions and morphologically complex vocabulary. Mid-proficiency readers (around score 350) can understand rule-based grammatical structures and some difficult constructions but do not consistently understand difficult vocabulary or make fine-grained distinctions between closely related word forms. Higher-proficiency readers (around score 450) can understand a broad range of vocabulary and both common and uncommon grammatical constructions. Accordingly, low-difficulty items in the present test involved high-frequency derivational patterns likely accessible to lower-proficiency learners (e.g., deverbal nouns with -ment or -ation, past participial adjectives with -ed). Medium-difficulty items involved moderately frequent patterns requiring rule-based morphological knowledge (e.g., manner adverbs with -ly, attributive adjectives). High-difficulty items involved low-frequency or morphosyntactically complex forms that challenge even mid-to-high proficiency learners (e.g., deadjectival forms with -ory, present participial modifiers with -ing). The overall aim of the test was to measure learners' ability to integrate morphological knowledge with syntactic and semantic processing at the sentence level. Items were classified into five morphological categories. The four primary categories of nouns (n = 7), verbs (n = 5), adjectives (n = 7), and adverbs (n = 7) were adopted directly from ETS's official characterization of TOEIC Part 5 word-form items, which identifies the ability to determine the correct part of speech as a core skill required for this item type (ETS 2016). Nouns were defined as items requiring a nominal form functioning as subject, object, or complement. Verbs required a finite or non-finite verbal form. Adjectives required a predicative or attributive adjectival form. Adverbs required a manner or degree adverbial form. A fifth category, participial/comparative forms (n = 4), was added to capture morphological patterns that fall outside simple part-of-speech substitution. As Koda (2005) notes, participial and comparative constructions require simultaneous processing of derivational form, syntactic function, and semantic interpretation, making them morphosyntactically more complex than basic nominal, verbal, or adjectival derivation. This five-category framework thus reflects both the official ETS item-type structure and the theoretical distinction between routine derivational morphology and more complex morphosyntactic processing. Classification decisions were verified through discussion among all three researchers, and any item with ambiguous category membership was revised prior to administration. Content validity was evaluated through expert review, in which each item was assessed for alignment with TOEIC Part 5 conventions, clarity of wording, and appropriateness of the distractors. Minor revisions were made based on this feedback. Each correct response was scored as 1 point (maximum = 30), and the test demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .882). Background survey A background survey collected information on demographic characteristics, English learning history, TOEIC experience, vocabulary study habits, and self-reported reading confidence. Confidence was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = very low; 5 = very high). Procedure Data were collected during regularly scheduled English classes in November 2025. Participants completed the 30-item morphological test within a 15-minute time limit, followed by the background survey, under standard supervised conditions without access to dictionaries or electronic devices. Data analysis Descriptive statistics and item-level difficulty indices (p-values) were computed for all 30 items. Internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach's alpha. A one-way ANOVA examined accuracy differences across morphological item types (α = .05), followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to identify which specific pairs of item types differed significantly. Spearman's rank-order correlation (ρ) examined the relationship between confidence and test scores. All analyses were conducted using Python (SciPy and statsmodels libraries). Results Overall test performance Participants achieved a mean score of 17.68 (SD = 6.76) out of 30 (accuracy = 58.9%; range = 2–30). The test demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .882). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Morphological Awareness Test (N = 277) Variable Value Mean (M) 17.68 Standard deviation (SD) 6.76 Minimum 2 Maximum 30 Accuracy rate 58.9% Cronbach's α .882 Note. Maximum possible score = 30. Item-level accuracy Item-level p-values ranged from .191 to .812. Table 2 presents a representative selection of items illustrating the range of accuracy across morphological types; complete item-level data are available upon request. The three easiest items involved a past participial form as predicate adjective (Q11: 81.2%), a past participial form as attributive adjective (Q17: 76.9%), and a deverbal noun with the suffix -ment (Q9: 76.5%), all morphological patterns encountered with high frequency in TOEIC preparation materials. The three most difficult items involved a present participial form used as a nominal modifier (Q22: 19.1%), a deadjectival form with the low-frequency suffix -ory (Q26: 32.1%), and a comparative adjective derived from an irregular base (Q21: 43.7%), all of which require more complex morphosyntactic processing. Table 2 Selected Item-Level Accuracy Rates by Morphological Type (N = 277) Item Morphological feature Type Accuracy (%) Q11 Past participial (-ed) as predicate adjective Verb 81.2% Q17 Past participial (-ed) as attributive adjective Adjective 76.9% Q9 Deverbal noun (-ment) Noun 76.5% Q6 Base verb form (zero derivation) Verb 72.9% Q4 Manner adverb (-ly) Adverb 69.7% Q2 Deverbal noun (-ation) Noun 69.7% Q3 Denominal adjective (-ic) Adjective 62.5% Q16 Manner adverb (-ly, low frequency) Adverb 46.6% Q21 Comparative adjective (-er, irregular base) Participial/Comp. 43.7% Q26 Deadjectival adjective (-ory) Adjective 32.1% Q22 Present participial (-ing) as modifier Participial/Comp. 19.1% Note. Ten representative items selected to illustrate the range of accuracy across morphological types: three highest-accuracy items, one representative item per morphological type, and three lowest-accuracy items. Complete item-level data are available from the corresponding author upon request. Performance across morphological item types Noun items showed the highest mean accuracy (M = .663), followed by verbs (.640), adjectives (.579), adverbs (.573), and participial/comparative forms (.444). Results are summarized in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 1 . Table 3 Mean Accuracy Rates by Morphological Item Type Type n (items) M (accuracy) % correct Noun 7 .663 66.3% Verb 5 .640 64.0% Adjective 7 .579 57.9% Adverb 7 .573 57.3% Participial/Comp. 4 .444 44.4% Total 30 .589 58.9% Note. M = mean proportion correct across items within each type. A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of morphological item type, F (4, 1380) = 40.05, p < .001. Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons indicated that participial/comparative forms were significantly less accurate than all other item types: noun ( p < .001), verb ( p .05). Reading confidence and morphological performance Mean scores increased from 12.22 (SD = 6.22) at confidence Level 1 to 21.12 (SD = 6.58) at Level 5 (Table 4 ; Fig. 3 ). Table 4 Mean Morphological Test Scores by Reading Confidence Level Confidence level n M SD 1 – Very low 36 12.22 6.22 2 – Low 49 17.92 6.61 3 – Moderate 120 17.82 6.42 4 – High 55 19.67 6.19 5 – Very high 17 21.12 6.58 Total 277 17.68 6.76 Note. Confidence: five-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). M = mean test score out of 30. Spearman's correlation confirmed a significant positive association between reading confidence and morphological test scores, ρ = .278, p < .001. The correlation was small-to-moderate (Cohen 1988 ). The similar mean scores at Levels 2 and 3 (17.92 vs. 17.82) indicate a non-linear relationship in the middle of the confidence range. Discussion Variation across morphological item types The most notable finding is the significant difficulty of participial and comparative forms (44.4%), which were significantly less accurate than all other item types in post-hoc comparisons (noun and verb: p < .001; adjective and adverb: p = .014). Importantly, noun, verb, adjective, and adverb items did not differ significantly from one another, suggesting that the primary difficulty boundary lies between participial/comparative forms and all other morphological categories. An examination of the morphological features presented in Table 2 reveals a consistent pattern: items involving high-frequency, formally transparent affixes tended to yield high accuracy, while items involving low-frequency or morphosyntactically complex features were markedly more difficult. Specifically, past participial forms functioning as predicate or attributive adjectives (-ed) showed the highest accuracy (Q11: 81.2%; Q17: 76.9%), consistent with their frequent occurrence in TOEIC preparation materials and everyday written English. Deverbal nouns formed with productive suffixes (-ment, -ation) also showed relatively high accuracy (Q9: 76.5%; Q2: 69.7%), suggesting that these high-frequency nominalizations are well-established in learners' morphological repertoires. By contrast, items involving derivationally opaque or morphosyntactically complex features showed considerably lower accuracy. The deadjectival suffix -ory (Q26: 32.1%) and the present participial (-ing) used as a nominal modifier (Q22: 19.1%) were particularly challenging, likely because these patterns are rare in standard TOEIC preparation texts and require simultaneous processing of derivational form, syntactic function, and semantic interpretation (Koda 2005 ). The comparative adjective form with an irregular base (Q21: 43.7%) and the low-frequency manner adverb (Q16: 46.6%) also fell below the overall mean, further supporting the view that affix frequency and morphosyntactic complexity jointly determine item difficulty (Schmitt and Zimmerman 2002 ). This pattern aligns with the morphological feature taxonomy displayed in Table 2 , which makes visible the direct relationship between specific derivational properties and learner performance on TOEIC Part 5 items. It is also worth noting that the 15-minute time limit approximates the time pressure of authentic TOEIC Part 5 conditions, lending ecological validity to the findings. At the same time, time pressure may have differentially affected performance on morphologically complex items, as these likely require more processing time than high-frequency forms. Self-reported confidence and performance The significant positive correlation (ρ = .278) between reading confidence and test scores is consistent with self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1997 ) and prior findings linking reading confidence to assessment outcomes (Grabe 2009 ). However, the modest magnitude and the minimal difference between Levels 2 and 3 suggest that self-report measures are not finely calibrated to distinguish learners in the middle proficiency range. This echoes Grabe's (2009) finding that the relationship between reading confidence and achievement is moderated by actual proficiency level. Pedagogical implications The findings suggest that TOEIC preparation should differentiate instruction by morphological item type rather than treating all Part 5 items as equivalent. Participial and comparative forms, in particular, warrant explicit attention. The positive association between confidence and performance further supports incorporating morphological awareness activities that simultaneously develop linguistic knowledge and learner self-efficacy. Corpus-based approaches addressing derivational productivity and affix frequency may be especially valuable for expanding learners' morphological repertoire. Conclusions This study examined Korean EFL learners' performance on TOEIC-style morphological items and the relationship between performance and self-reported reading confidence (N = 277). Noun forms were easiest (66.3%) and participial/comparative forms most difficult (44.4%), with significant between-type differences confirmed by ANOVA, F(4, 1380) = 40.05, p < .001. A significant positive association was found between reading confidence and test scores, ρ = .278, p < .001. These findings highlight the importance of differentiating morphological instruction in TOEIC preparation and EFL pedagogy. This study has several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from two universities in South Korea with a concentration of students in vocationally oriented programs such as aviation tourism and railway engineering, which may limit generalizability to other EFL populations and academic contexts. Second, the participial/comparative category comprised only four items, which may not adequately represent the full range of participial and comparative morphological demands in TOEIC Part 5. Future studies should expand the number of items in this category to increase statistical stability and construct coverage. Third, reading confidence was measured with a single Likert-scale item, which may not adequately capture the multidimensional nature of language learning self-efficacy. Fourth, the 30-item test may not fully represent the full range of morphological demands in TOEIC Part 5, and the 15-minute time limit, while ecologically valid, may have introduced time pressure as a confounding variable. Fifth, the correlational design precludes causal inference regarding the confidence-performance relationship. Future research should replicate these findings with larger and more diverse samples, employ validated multi-item measures of morphological self-efficacy, and investigate whether explicit morphological instruction can simultaneously improve test performance and learner confidence. Abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of variance CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages EFL English as a Foreign Language ETS Educational Testing Service IQR Interquartile range IRB Institutional Review Board L2 Second language M Mean MTPE Machine translation post-editing RQ Research question SD Standard deviation TOEIC Test of English for International Communication Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. An application for IRB exemption has been submitted to the Korean Public Institutional Review Board (exemption confirmation pending). All participants provided voluntary informed consent prior to participation. Consent for publication Not applicable. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contribution SE Cho: study conception, test development, data analysis, and manuscript writing.DM Kim: data collection, manuscript review, and revision. JY Lee: data collection, manuscript review, and revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. References Cho, S. E., Tak, J. Y., & Kim, D. M. (2025). An Empirical Analysis of TOEIC Part 5 Improvement Patterns: Focusing on PBL-based Learning [in Korean]. 융합영어영문학(CELL) , 10 (3), 247–265. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading . Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control . Freeman. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school, expanded edn . National Academy. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the Structure and Meaning of Morphologically Complex Words: Impact on Reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 12 , 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604 Chapelle, C. A., & Douglas, D. (2006). Assessing Language through Computer Technology . Cambridge University Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale. Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2016). TOEIC listening and reading sample test . ETS. https://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-sample-test.pdf Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2024). TOEIC listening and reading score descriptors . ETS. https://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-score-descriptors.pdf Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice . Cambridge University Press. Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The Role of Derivational Morphology in the Reading Comprehension of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners. Reading and Writing , 21 , 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8 Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach . Cambridge University Press. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of Morphology beyond Phonology to Literacy Outcomes of Upper Elementary and Middle-school Students. Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 (1), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134 Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar . Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: what do learners know? TESOL Quarterly , 36 (2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588328 Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2012). Contribution of Morphological Awareness and Lexical Inferencing Ability to L2 Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension among Advanced EFL Learners: Testing Direct and Indirect Effects. Reading and Writing , 25 (5), 1195–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9313-z Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 09 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 19 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 09 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 08 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 05 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9324392","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621629234,"identity":"d5aec9db-4702-4d3b-993c-1a70d17af435","order_by":0,"name":"Seongeun Cho","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sejong University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Seongeun","middleName":"","lastName":"Cho","suffix":""},{"id":621629235,"identity":"ba43c435-8754-4412-9bea-e29e3336723f","order_by":1,"name":"Dongmi Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Daeshin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dongmi","middleName":"","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":621629237,"identity":"fc1cf228-de16-4fb4-934d-90d1b44e46fd","order_by":2,"name":"Jieun Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Woosong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jieun","middleName":"","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-05 06:23:43","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9324392/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9324392/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107189509,"identity":"51a3f2fc-481e-4e3c-822b-0ba15d3c3ad2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-17 20:27:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":168786,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean accuracy rates by morphological item type. The dashed line indicates the overall mean accuracy (58.9%). Values above bars indicate mean accuracy and number of items per type. One-way ANOVA: F(4, 1380) = 40.05, p \u0026lt; .001. N = 277.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9324392/v1/8cc7683b69e2e02d97309790.png"},{"id":107481716,"identity":"d5665e9a-6c0f-4bc1-adeb-dab47dadef87","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:19:44","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":155018,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of per-participant accuracy rates by morphological item type. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR); the horizontal line inside the box indicates the median; whiskers extend to 1.5 × IQR; circles beyond the whiskers are outliers; and diamonds (◆) indicate group means. Participial/comparative forms show the lowest mean and the widest spread, reflecting greater within-group variability compared to other types. One-way ANOVA: F(4, 1380) = 40.05, p \u0026lt; .001. N = 277.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9324392/v1/ac78a80cabee890d90b6bfb1.png"},{"id":107189511,"identity":"0c9ff483-aeb6-4111-a3eb-891b1d4d4b6e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-17 20:27:05","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":317116,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean morphological test scores by self-reported reading confidence level (1 = very low to 5 = very high). Error bars represent ±1 SD. The dashed line indicates the overall mean score (M = 17.68). Mean scores increase monotonically from Level 1 (M = 12.22, SD = 6.22) to Level 5 (M = 21.12, SD = 6.58), with the exception of a plateau between Levels 2 and 3. Spearman's ρ = .278, p \u0026lt; .001. N = 277.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9324392/v1/8dfaf5ef862868101bd2ea3b.jpeg"},{"id":107484408,"identity":"befab399-72be-4d50-83b8-8b94002f4a28","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:31:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":905086,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9324392/v1/a80a5391-5ce1-47b9-955d-fa3e92050eb6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eMorphological Awareness in TOEIC Word-Form Questions: \u003cstrong\u003eAn Item-Type Analysis of EFL Learners' Performance and Perceptions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) is among the most widely used standardized English proficiency assessments in academic and professional contexts, particularly in East Asia (Chapelle and Douglas 2006). Part 5 of the TOEIC Reading section, which focuses on sentence completion, has attracted considerable attention due to its emphasis on grammatical accuracy and lexical form selection. Although these items are commonly categorized as grammar or vocabulary questions in preparation materials, many Part 5 items fundamentally require morphological awareness: the ability to recognize and select appropriate word forms based on morphological relationships (Carlisle 2000; Koda 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the acknowledged importance of morphological awareness in language learning, few empirical studies have examined how EFL learners perform across different morphological item types in TOEIC-style tasks, and fewer still have explored the relationship between learners' actual performance and their self-perceived reading proficiency. Mismatches between perceived competence and actual ability may influence study strategies and learning outcomes (Bransford et al. 2000), making this relationship important to understand.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study addresses these gaps by analyzing 277 Korean university students' performance on a TOEIC-style morphological test and examining associations with self-reported reading confidence. The following research questions are addressed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRQ1. How do EFL learners perform across different morphological item types in TOEIC-style word-form questions?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRQ2. Which morphological forms are most challenging for learners?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRQ3. How is self-reported reading confidence related to morphological test performance?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMorphological awareness in EFL learning\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMorphological awareness refers to learners' ability to recognize, analyze, and manipulate morphemes within words (Carlisle 2000). It supports vocabulary development and reading comprehension by allowing learners to understand relationships between words sharing common roots and affixes (Nagy et al. 2006). In foreign language contexts, morphological awareness facilitates the processing of unfamiliar vocabulary and the recognition of word families (Koda 2005). Learners with stronger morphological awareness are better able to infer meanings of novel words and handle complex sentence structures (Schmitt and Zimmerman 2002; Zhang and Koda 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMorphological awareness encompasses derivational knowledge (how affixes change word class and meaning), inflectional knowledge (grammatical variations), and syntactic awareness (how word class interacts with sentence structure). Kieffer and Lesaux (2008) demonstrated that these components contribute independently to reading comprehension, underscoring their collective importance for academic language proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMorphological items in standardized tests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn standardized English tests such as the TOEIC, sentence completion items frequently require learners to select the morphologically appropriate word form based on syntactic and semantic cues. Purpura (2004) argues that such items necessarily involve the interaction between grammatical and lexical knowledge. Alderson (2000) similarly notes that vocabulary knowledge in testing contexts frequently overlaps with morphological processing. Accordingly, TOEIC word-form items can be understood as assessments of morphological awareness rather than purely grammatical or lexical knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch has identified variation in item difficulty depending on morphological category. Items requiring participial or adverbial forms tend to be more challenging for EFL learners than items involving common noun or verb forms (Schmitt and Zimmerman 2002). However, empirical studies examining TOEIC Part 5 items systematically across multiple morphological categories remain scarce.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA notable exception is a prior study ([Author(s), 2025]), which analyzed score patterns across TOEIC Part 5 sub-types among Korean EFL learners and found that morphological knowledge was the strongest predictor of overall TOEIC scores, accounting for a greater proportion of variance than vocabulary knowledge alone. That study established that morphological competence plays a central role in TOEIC Part 5 performance; however, it did not examine which specific morphological item types posed the greatest difficulty, nor did it explore the relationship between learner confidence and morphological performance. The present study addresses these gaps by providing an item-type-level analysis of morphological accuracy and its association with self-reported reading confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eLearner perceptions and test performance\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy, defined as an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish a specific task, has been shown to predict language test performance (Bandura 1997). Grabe (2009) found that learners who perceive themselves as confident readers tend to score higher on standardized assessments, although the relationship is moderated by actual proficiency. The present study extends this research by examining whether self-reported reading confidence predicts performance on a morphology-focused test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants were 277 undergraduate students enrolled in required English courses at two universities in South Korea: Suwon Science College and Woosong University (174 female, 62.8%; 103 male, 37.2%). Participants were drawn from multiple departments including aviation tourism, railway engineering, food science, physical therapy, and computer science, among others. The majority (n = 201, 72.6%) reported three or fewer years of English study. All participants were native Korean speakers learning English as a foreign language. Participation was voluntary and all participants provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInstruments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMorphological awareness test\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 30-item morphological awareness test modeled on TOEIC Part 5 was administered. According to ETS (2016), Part 5 of the TOEIC Listening and Reading Test consists of 30 incomplete sentences, each accompanied by four answer choices (A–D), from which test takers must select the word or phrase that best completes the sentence. Word-form questions, in which all four options are derivationally related forms of the same base word, constitute a major item type within this section (e.g., A: complication, B: complicates, C: complicate, D: complicated). The items in the present test were developed in strict accordance with this format: each item presented an incomplete sentence requiring participants to select the appropriate word form based on the syntactic and semantic context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll items were constructed using a word-family approach, in which each set of four answer options consisted of derivationally related forms of a common base word (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, and adverb forms derived from the same root). This design was intended to assess learners' ability to recognize and apply appropriate morphological forms in context, rather than relying on isolated vocabulary knowledge or guessing based on unfamiliar lexical items.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo capture a meaningful range of morphological awareness across learners of varying proficiency levels, items were purposefully designed across three difficulty levels (high, medium, and low) with reference to the TOEIC Listening and Reading Score Descriptors (ETS 2024). According to these descriptors, lower-proficiency readers (around score 150–250) can understand common rule-based grammatical structures and easy vocabulary but struggle with difficult or uncommon grammatical constructions and morphologically complex vocabulary. Mid-proficiency readers (around score 350) can understand rule-based grammatical structures and some difficult constructions but do not consistently understand difficult vocabulary or make fine-grained distinctions between closely related word forms. Higher-proficiency readers (around score 450) can understand a broad range of vocabulary and both common and uncommon grammatical constructions. Accordingly, low-difficulty items in the present test involved high-frequency derivational patterns likely accessible to lower-proficiency learners (e.g., deverbal nouns with -ment or -ation, past participial adjectives with -ed). Medium-difficulty items involved moderately frequent patterns requiring rule-based morphological knowledge (e.g., manner adverbs with -ly, attributive adjectives). High-difficulty items involved low-frequency or morphosyntactically complex forms that challenge even mid-to-high proficiency learners (e.g., deadjectival forms with -ory, present participial modifiers with -ing). The overall aim of the test was to measure learners' ability to integrate morphological knowledge with syntactic and semantic processing at the sentence level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eItems were classified into five morphological categories. The four primary categories of nouns (n = 7), verbs (n = 5), adjectives (n = 7), and adverbs (n = 7) were adopted directly from ETS's official characterization of TOEIC Part 5 word-form items, which identifies the ability to determine the correct part of speech as a core skill required for this item type (ETS 2016). Nouns were defined as items requiring a nominal form functioning as subject, object, or complement. Verbs required a finite or non-finite verbal form. Adjectives required a predicative or attributive adjectival form. Adverbs required a manner or degree adverbial form. A fifth category, participial/comparative forms (n = 4), was added to capture morphological patterns that fall outside simple part-of-speech substitution. As Koda (2005) notes, participial and comparative constructions require simultaneous processing of derivational form, syntactic function, and semantic interpretation, making them morphosyntactically more complex than basic nominal, verbal, or adjectival derivation. This five-category framework thus reflects both the official ETS item-type structure and the theoretical distinction between routine derivational morphology and more complex morphosyntactic processing. Classification decisions were verified through discussion among all three researchers, and any item with ambiguous category membership was revised prior to administration. Content validity was evaluated through expert review, in which each item was assessed for alignment with TOEIC Part 5 conventions, clarity of wording, and appropriateness of the distractors. Minor revisions were made based on this feedback. Each correct response was scored as 1 point (maximum = 30), and the test demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .882).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBackground survey\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA background survey collected information on demographic characteristics, English learning history, TOEIC experience, vocabulary study habits, and self-reported reading confidence. Confidence was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = very low; 5 = very high).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected during regularly scheduled English classes in November 2025. Participants completed the 30-item morphological test within a 15-minute time limit, followed by the background survey, under standard supervised conditions without access to dictionaries or electronic devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and item-level difficulty indices (p-values) were computed for all 30 items. Internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach's alpha. A one-way ANOVA examined accuracy differences across morphological item types (α = .05), followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to identify which specific pairs of item types differed significantly. Spearman's rank-order correlation (ρ) examined the relationship between confidence and test scores. All analyses were conducted using Python (SciPy and statsmodels libraries).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOverall test performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants achieved a mean score of 17.68 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.76) out of 30 (accuracy\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58.9%; range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2\u0026ndash;30). The test demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.882). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics for the Morphological Awareness Test (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;277)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean (M)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandard deviation (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaximum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccuracy rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach's α\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.882\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Maximum possible score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eItem-level accuracy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eItem-level p-values ranged from .191 to .812. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents a representative selection of items illustrating the range of accuracy across morphological types; complete item-level data are available upon request. The three easiest items involved a past participial form as predicate adjective (Q11: 81.2%), a past participial form as attributive adjective (Q17: 76.9%), and a deverbal noun with the suffix -ment (Q9: 76.5%), all morphological patterns encountered with high frequency in TOEIC preparation materials. The three most difficult items involved a present participial form used as a nominal modifier (Q22: 19.1%), a deadjectival form with the low-frequency suffix -ory (Q26: 32.1%), and a comparative adjective derived from an irregular base (Q21: 43.7%), all of which require more complex morphosyntactic processing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected Item-Level Accuracy Rates by Morphological Type (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;277)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMorphological feature\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccuracy (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePast participial (-ed) as predicate adjective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePast participial (-ed) as attributive adjective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeverbal noun (-ment)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoun\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBase verb form (zero derivation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManner adverb (-ly)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdverb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeverbal noun (-ation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoun\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDenominal adjective (-ic)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManner adverb (-ly, low frequency)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdverb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative adjective (-er, irregular base)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipial/Comp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeadjectival adjective (-ory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePresent participial (-ing) as modifier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipial/Comp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Ten representative items selected to illustrate the range of accuracy across morphological types: three highest-accuracy items, one representative item per morphological type, and three lowest-accuracy items. Complete item-level data are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePerformance across morphological item types\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNoun items showed the highest mean accuracy (M = .663), followed by verbs (.640), adjectives (.579), adverbs (.573), and participial/comparative forms (.444). Results are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean Accuracy Rates by Morphological Item Type\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en (items)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM (accuracy)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% correct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoun\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.663\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.640\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.579\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdverb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.573\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipial/Comp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.444\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e30\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.589\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e58.9%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mean proportion correct across items within each type.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of morphological item type, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 1380)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001. Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons indicated that participial/comparative forms were significantly less accurate than all other item types: noun (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), verb (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), adjective (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .014), and adverb (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .014). No significant differences were found among noun, verb, adjective, and adverb items (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es \u0026gt; .05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReading confidence and morphological performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean scores increased from 12.22 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.22) at confidence Level 1 to 21.12 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.58) at Level 5 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean Morphological Test Scores by Reading Confidence Level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfidence level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 \u0026ndash; Very low\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 \u0026ndash; Low\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 \u0026ndash; Moderate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 \u0026ndash; High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 \u0026ndash; Very high\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e277\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17.68\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.76\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Confidence: five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very low, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very high). M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mean test score out of 30.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpearman's correlation confirmed a significant positive association between reading confidence and morphological test scores, \u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.278, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001. The correlation was small-to-moderate (Cohen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). The similar mean scores at Levels 2 and 3 (17.92 vs. 17.82) indicate a non-linear relationship in the middle of the confidence range.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVariation across morphological item types\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most notable finding is the significant difficulty of participial and comparative forms (44.4%), which were significantly less accurate than all other item types in post-hoc comparisons (noun and verb: p \u0026lt; .001; adjective and adverb: p = .014). Importantly, noun, verb, adjective, and adverb items did not differ significantly from one another, suggesting that the primary difficulty boundary lies between participial/comparative forms and all other morphological categories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn examination of the morphological features presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reveals a consistent pattern: items involving high-frequency, formally transparent affixes tended to yield high accuracy, while items involving low-frequency or morphosyntactically complex features were markedly more difficult. Specifically, past participial forms functioning as predicate or attributive adjectives (-ed) showed the highest accuracy (Q11: 81.2%; Q17: 76.9%), consistent with their frequent occurrence in TOEIC preparation materials and everyday written English. Deverbal nouns formed with productive suffixes (-ment, -ation) also showed relatively high accuracy (Q9: 76.5%; Q2: 69.7%), suggesting that these high-frequency nominalizations are well-established in learners' morphological repertoires.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, items involving derivationally opaque or morphosyntactically complex features showed considerably lower accuracy. The deadjectival suffix -ory (Q26: 32.1%) and the present participial (-ing) used as a nominal modifier (Q22: 19.1%) were particularly challenging, likely because these patterns are rare in standard TOEIC preparation texts and require simultaneous processing of derivational form, syntactic function, and semantic interpretation (Koda \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The comparative adjective form with an irregular base (Q21: 43.7%) and the low-frequency manner adverb (Q16: 46.6%) also fell below the overall mean, further supporting the view that affix frequency and morphosyntactic complexity jointly determine item difficulty (Schmitt and Zimmerman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). This pattern aligns with the morphological feature taxonomy displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, which makes visible the direct relationship between specific derivational properties and learner performance on TOEIC Part 5 items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also worth noting that the 15-minute time limit approximates the time pressure of authentic TOEIC Part 5 conditions, lending ecological validity to the findings. At the same time, time pressure may have differentially affected performance on morphologically complex items, as these likely require more processing time than high-frequency forms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSelf-reported confidence and performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant positive correlation (ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.278) between reading confidence and test scores is consistent with self-efficacy theory (Bandura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) and prior findings linking reading confidence to assessment outcomes (Grabe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). However, the modest magnitude and the minimal difference between Levels 2 and 3 suggest that self-report measures are not finely calibrated to distinguish learners in the middle proficiency range. This echoes Grabe's (2009) finding that the relationship between reading confidence and achievement is moderated by actual proficiency level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePedagogical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that TOEIC preparation should differentiate instruction by morphological item type rather than treating all Part 5 items as equivalent. Participial and comparative forms, in particular, warrant explicit attention. The positive association between confidence and performance further supports incorporating morphological awareness activities that simultaneously develop linguistic knowledge and learner self-efficacy. Corpus-based approaches addressing derivational productivity and affix frequency may be especially valuable for expanding learners' morphological repertoire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined Korean EFL learners' performance on TOEIC-style morphological items and the relationship between performance and self-reported reading confidence (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;277). Noun forms were easiest (66.3%) and participial/comparative forms most difficult (44.4%), with significant between-type differences confirmed by ANOVA, F(4, 1380)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.05, p \u0026lt; .001. A significant positive association was found between reading confidence and test scores, ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.278, p \u0026lt; .001. These findings highlight the importance of differentiating morphological instruction in TOEIC preparation and EFL pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from two universities in South Korea with a concentration of students in vocationally oriented programs such as aviation tourism and railway engineering, which may limit generalizability to other EFL populations and academic contexts. Second, the participial/comparative category comprised only four items, which may not adequately represent the full range of participial and comparative morphological demands in TOEIC Part 5. Future studies should expand the number of items in this category to increase statistical stability and construct coverage. Third, reading confidence was measured with a single Likert-scale item, which may not adequately capture the multidimensional nature of language learning self-efficacy. Fourth, the 30-item test may not fully represent the full range of morphological demands in TOEIC Part 5, and the 15-minute time limit, while ecologically valid, may have introduced time pressure as a confounding variable. Fifth, the correlational design precludes causal inference regarding the confidence-performance relationship. Future research should replicate these findings with larger and more diverse samples, employ validated multi-item measures of morphological self-efficacy, and investigate whether explicit morphological instruction can simultaneously improve test performance and learner confidence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eANOVA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of variance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCEFR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon European Framework of Reference for Languages\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eEFL\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish as a Foreign Language\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eETS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational Testing Service\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIQR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterquartile range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIRB\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional Review Board\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eL2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond language\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eM\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMTPE\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMachine translation post-editing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRQ\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandard deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTOEIC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest of English for International Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. An application for IRB exemption has been submitted to the Korean Public Institutional Review Board (exemption confirmation pending). All participants provided voluntary informed consent prior to participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSE Cho: study conception, test development, data analysis, and manuscript writing.DM Kim: data collection, manuscript review, and revision. JY Lee: data collection, manuscript review, and revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCho, S. E., Tak, J. Y., \u0026amp; Kim, D. M. (2025). An Empirical Analysis of TOEIC Part 5 Improvement Patterns: Focusing on PBL-based Learning [in Korean]. \u003cem\u003e융합영어영문학(CELL)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 247\u0026ndash;265.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlderson, J. C. (2000). \u003cem\u003eAssessing reading\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura, A. (1997). \u003cem\u003eSelf Efficacy: The Exercise of Control\u003c/em\u003e. Freeman.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., \u0026amp; Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). \u003cem\u003eHow people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school, expanded edn\u003c/em\u003e. National Academy.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the Structure and Meaning of Morphologically Complex Words: Impact on Reading. \u003cem\u003eReading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 169\u0026ndash;190. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1008131926604\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChapelle, C. A., \u0026amp; Douglas, D. (2006). \u003cem\u003eAssessing Language through Computer Technology\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen, J. (1988). \u003cem\u003eStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEducational Testing Service (ETS). (2016). \u003cem\u003eTOEIC listening and reading sample test\u003c/em\u003e. ETS. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-sample-test.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-sample-test.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEducational Testing Service (ETS). (2024). \u003cem\u003eTOEIC listening and reading score descriptors\u003c/em\u003e. ETS. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-score-descriptors.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-score-descriptors.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrabe, W. (2009). \u003cem\u003eReading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKieffer, M. J., \u0026amp; Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The Role of Derivational Morphology in the Reading Comprehension of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners. \u003cem\u003eReading and Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e, 783\u0026ndash;804. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoda, K. (2005). \u003cem\u003eInsights into Second Language Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNagy, W., Berninger, V. W., \u0026amp; Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of Morphology beyond Phonology to Literacy Outcomes of Upper Elementary and Middle-school Students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e98\u003c/em\u003e(1), 134\u0026ndash;147. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePurpura, J. E. (2004). \u003cem\u003eAssessing grammar\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmitt, N., \u0026amp; Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: what do learners know? \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145\u0026ndash;171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/3588328\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/3588328\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, D., \u0026amp; Koda, K. (2012). Contribution of Morphological Awareness and Lexical Inferencing Ability to L2 Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension among Advanced EFL Learners: Testing Direct and Indirect Effects. \u003cem\u003eReading and Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1195\u0026ndash;1216. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9313-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11145-011-9313-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"language-testing-in-asia","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ltia","sideBox":"Learn more about [Language Testing in Asia](http://languagetestingasia.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40468","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40468/3","title":"Language Testing in Asia","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Open","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"morphological awareness, TOEIC, word-form items, EFL, language assessment, Korea, reading confidence","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9324392/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9324392/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMorphological awareness plays an important role in second and foreign language reading and vocabulary development. However, relatively little empirical research has examined how learners perform on different types of morphological items in standardized English proficiency tests such as the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). The present study investigates EFL learners' performance across morphological item types on a TOEIC-style word-form test and examines the relationship between test performance and self-reported reading confidence. A total of 277 university students in South Korea completed a 30-item TOEIC-style morphological test alongside a background survey. The test demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.882). Results showed that noun items yielded the highest accuracy rate (66.3%), while participial and comparative forms were most difficult (44.4%). A one-way ANOVA confirmed significant differences across item types, F(4, 1380)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.05, p \u0026lt; .001. Spearman's rank-order correlation revealed a significant positive association between reading confidence and test scores (ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.278, p \u0026lt; .001). The findings underscore the importance of explicit morphological instruction in TOEIC preparation and EFL pedagogy more broadly.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Morphological Awareness in TOEIC Word-Form Questions: An Item-Type Analysis of EFL Learners' Performance and Perceptions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-17 20:27:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9324392/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-09T10:49:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-19T11:54:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"337292486712598705345700755772084191495","date":"2026-04-12T08:30:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"287407367286971371553213038781551575602","date":"2026-04-10T11:33:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"134013468167863343638348446301873714731","date":"2026-04-09T13:09:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"168868783141570808155007274938598537233","date":"2026-04-09T12:13:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-09T09:51:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T07:11:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T07:11:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Language Testing in Asia","date":"2026-04-05T06:06:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"language-testing-in-asia","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ltia","sideBox":"Learn more about [Language Testing in Asia](http://languagetestingasia.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40468","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40468/3","title":"Language Testing in Asia","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Open","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"33abf8d1-42e6-4210-876a-8844104c11c3","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-09T10:49:02+00:00","index":33,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-17T20:27:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-17 20:27:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9324392","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9324392","identity":"rs-9324392","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}