حمیده معرفت

This synthesis reviews the methodological issues in empirical studies investigating the effect of working memory capacity (WMC) on relative clause ambiguity resolution where results have failed to be consistent cross-linguistically and even intra-linguistically. This discrepancy might have occurred due to ‘methodological inconsistencies’ in the design (Liu & Brown, 2015), administration, and scoring of WMC measures. This study aimed to investigate the aggregative and developmental status of the methodological practices of WMC measures and describe how transparently such practices have been reported. Based on a comprehensive search, 39 experiments were retrieved from 25 studies, culminating in a collection of studies with a time span of 22 years from 1999 to 2021, and coded for 46 features. Results revealed that although over the past 22 years, the field has witnessed significant improvements in the employment of WMC tests, there are still a lot of variations and inconsistencies calling for attempts to raise methodological awareness among researchers to afford more attention to quality and transparency in reporting WMC tests. The article concludes with a call for reform in standardizing WMC tests and a number of other recommendations for future primary and secondary research.

Research on relative clause (RC) ambiguity resolution in first and second-language contexts has produced conflicting results, with some studies indicating a preference for high attachment, others favoring low attachment, and some reporting no clear preference. In conjunction with other variables, these mixed results may be due to variations in the methodological features employed across studies. Therefore, there is a pressing need for a systematic review of the methodological features of relevant offline tasks to evaluate how these differences may lead to conflicting results critically. To address this issue, a systematic methodological review was conducted analyzing 108 features of offline tasks, including identification, context, materials, design, administration, data analysis, open science practices, and transparency. The results revealed significant methodological variation in the literature and a moderate mean transparency score of 59.77. These findings emphasize the need for methodological standardization and greater transparency in future research to ensure reliable and comparable RC ambiguity resolution research results.