Language aptitude (LA) and working memory (WM) are two cognitive individual differences investigated in language learning and receive particular attention for possible interactions of their subcomponents and a construct-level understanding (e.g., Wen & Skehan, 2021). The role of multilingual experience in this interrelationship also received growing attention with varying findings from different contexts (e.g., Cox et al., 2019; Huang et al. 2021). In this study, we present third language comprehension correlations with WM and LA data collected using LLAMA version 2 (Meara, 2005) and the newly released version 3 (Meara & Rogers, 2019). In the first part of data collection, 21 undergraduate senior ELT students taking a third foreign language at pre-intermediate and above levels at an English-medium university in Turkey took the LLAMA (version 2 by Meara, 2005), operation and rotation span tasks (Foster et al., 2015). Participants learning German, Spanish, Italian or French also took listening and reading sections of language tests (Goethe, Cervantes, CILS, and DELF exams respectively) at B1 level based on the CEFR. Significant correlations of L3 listening with WM (r = .588, p < .01) and LLAMA D (r = -.513, p < .05) were observed. None of the LLAMA subtests was correlated with WM. In the second part, another senior cohort of 14 participants matching the previous cohort in L3 comprehension and WM scores took the newly released LLAMA version 3. The new LLAMA F was significantly correlated with L3 listening (r = -.560, p < .05) and L3 reading (r = -.537, p < .05). These preliminary findings are discussed comparing the two versions of LLAMA basically differing in the item response types and scoring on subtests D (sound recognition), E (sound-symbol correspondence), and F (grammatical inferencing). The negative direction of the significant correlations of LA with L3 comprehension in both versions of LLAMA is also discussed with relation to the previous research on LLAMA. 
References
Cox, J. G., Lynch, J. M., Mendes, N., & Zhai, C. (2019). On bilingual aptitude for learning new languages: The roles of linguistic and nonlinguistic individual differences. Language Learning, 69(2), 478-514. 
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 226-236.
Huang, Y., Wang, M., & Rao, H. (2021): Working memory as a partial mediator of the relationship between multilingualism and foreign language aptitude. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2021.1993860
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea: Lognostics.
Meara, P. & Rogers, V. E. (2019). The LLAMA Tests v3. Cardiff: Lognostics.
Wen, Z. & Skehan, P. (2021). Stages of acquisition and the P/E model of working memory: Complementary or contrasting approaches to foreign language aptitude?. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41. 6-24.

Two factors suggested to influence second-language acquisition are cross-linguistic influence (CLI) and language-learning aptitude. However, the relationship between these two factors has rarely been investigated, and it is unclear to what extent the relative importance of CLI and aptitude depends on the degree of similarity between the target language and previously acquired languages (cf. Bokander 2021; Skehan 1998; Tolentino & Tokowicz 2014). The present study addresses this issue by examining the longitudinal development of definiteness marking in native Russian-speaking learners of Swedish as a third language (L3), who had previously acquired English as a second language (L2). Unlike Russian, English and Swedish obligatorily express definiteness using dedicated functional morphology. While the English indefinite article (a park) is structurally similar to its Swedish counterpart (en park 'a park'), the English definite article (the park) is structurally dissimilar to its Swedish counterpart, which is a nominal suffix (park-en 'the park'). In this study, we exploit these structural similarities and differences across languages in order to investigate the role of both CLI and language-learning aptitude in L3 acquisition of functional morphology.
Using a communicative, oral task, we elicited definite and indefinite noun phrases from native speakers of Russian (n = 18) at three occasions during the first two terms of a beginner-Swedish course. At data point 1, we tested their use of English articles, using the same task, as well as their language-learning aptitude, using Meara's (2005) LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. In addition, reference data were collected from native speakers of Swedish (n = 26) and English (n = 17). The participants' use of indefinite and definite morphemes was analysed separately, and two linear mixed-effects models were built to investigate to what extent the learners' language-learning aptitude and command of English articles could predict their developing use of the Swedish indefinite article and definite suffix respectively.
The results revealed that the learners' use of both morphemes improved over time. Their use of the indefinite article was associated with their command of the English indefinite article, which is structurally similar to the Swedish one. In contrast, their use of the definite nominal suffix, which is structurally dissimilar to its English counterpart, was associated with aptitude. This suggests that L3 learners may capitalise on previously-acquired linguistic knowledge primarily when source and target languages are similar, while language-learning aptitude appears to play a more important role in the acquisition of qualitatively new morphology, that is morphology without a structurally similar counterpart in any previously learned language.
References
Bokander, Lars (2021). Language aptitude and crosslinguistic influence in initial L2 learning. Journal of the European Second Language Association 4(1), s. 35–44. 
Meara, Paul (2005). LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests: the manual. Swansea: Lognostics. 
Tolentino, Leida C. & Natasha Tokowicz (2014). Cross-language similarity modulates effectiveness of second language grammar instruction. Language Learning 64(2), s. 279–309. 
Skehan, Peter (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

In recent years, the freely available LLAMA tests (Meara, 2005) have been widely used as a test of language learning aptitude. However, they have been subject to a number of criticisms, including their reliability (Bokander and Bylund, 2020) and construct validity, namely whether the aptitude tests are really memory tests. Wen (2016) suggests aptitude and working memory (WM) may overlap whereas Buffington and Morgan-Short (2019) argue for a role for declarative and procedural (LTM) memory. These criticisms relate to the original LLAMA tests but in 2019, Meara and Rogers released an updated, online version (v.3). This paper seeks to empirically investigate:
1. Are the LLAMA v.3 tests (more) reliable?
2. Do the LLAMA v.3 tests measure the same thing as common WM and LTM tests?
The four LLAMA tests - LLAMA B (vocabulary), LLAMA D (sound recognition), LLAMA E (sound-symbol correspondence) and LLAMA F (grammatical inferencing) - were re-programmed into gorilla.sc for online administration. The test battery also included a Flanker test and auditory digits forwards and backwards tests (various WM components), Tower of Hanoi (procedural memory) and CVMT (declarative memory). 210 participants took the 8 tasks as well as a background questionnaire (F=145, Mean age = 23, (range 18-84)).
Data analysis for the LLAMA D, Hanoi and digits tasks is ongoing. Preliminary analysis with the other tasks for RQ1 shows that the Cronbach's alpha scores are all over .80 suggesting the new test is an improvement on the previous version in terms of internal consistency. Table 1 compares the Cronbach alpha scores from this study with the new LLAMA tests and those found in Bokander & Bylund's (2020) paper with the original tests.
Table 1: Comparison of Cronbach alpha scores.pdf
In terms of RQ2: a principal components analysis was carried out to establish if the Flanker, CVMT and LLAMA B, E & F tests were measuring the same construct. A chi-squared test showed the model was significant (p< .001) and two components were produced (see Table 2: Component Loadings.pdf).
Note.  Applied rotation method is promax.  
The results suggest that the declarative memory measure loads on the same component as the three LLAMA tests (Buffington & Morgan-Short, 2019) whereas the executive function test measures something else contra Wen (2016). Additional analysis will include the remaining tests and the reaction time measures collected. 
References:
Bokander, L., & Bylund, E. (2020). Probing the internal validity of the LLAMA language aptitude tests. Language learning, 70(1), 11-47.
Buffington, J., & Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language aptitude. In Language Aptitude (pp. 215-237). Routledge.
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics.
Meara, P. and Rogers, V. (2019) The LLAMA Tests v3. Cardiff: Lognostics.
Wen, Z. E. (2016). Working memory and second language learning. Multilingual matters.