Reconstructing Readability: Recent Developments and Recommendations in the Analysis of Text Difficulty

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 63-88

  Benjamin, Rebekah George ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Readability; Reading; Text analysis; Text difficulty

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856703537     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
2. Anderson, R., & Pichert, J. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17(1), 1-12. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(78)90485-1.
3. Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21(3), 285-301.
4. Blackburn, B. (2000). Best practices for using Lexiles. Popular Measurement, 3(1), 22-24.
5. Bormuth, J. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 79-132.
6. Bormuth, J. R. (1969). Development of readability analyses. Final Report, Project No. 7-0052, Contract No. 1, OEC-3-7-070052-0326. Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Education.
7. Bormuth, J. R. (1971). Development of standards of readability: Toward a rational criterion of passage performance. Final report, U. S. Office of Education, Project No. 9-0237. Chicago: University of Chicago.
8. Britton, B., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329-345. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 83. 3. 329.
9. Britton, B., Gülgöz, S., Glynn, S. (1993). Impact of good and poor writing on learners: Research and theory. Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 1-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (Eds.). (1971). Word frequency book. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
11. Caylor, J. S., Sticht, T. G., Fox, L. C., Ford, J. P. 1973. Methodologies for determining reading requirements of military occupational specialties: Technical report No. 73-5. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
12. Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
13. Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conrad, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
14. Coleman, E. (1962). Improving comprehensibility by shortening sentences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(2), 131-134. doi: 10. 1037/h0039740.
15. Collins-Thompson, K., & Callan, J. (2004). A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. In S. Dumais, D. Marcu, & S. Roukos (Eds.), HLT-NAACL 2004: Main proceedings (pp. 193-200). Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Collins-Thompson, K., & Callan, J. (2005). Predicting reading difficulty with statistical language models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(13), 1448-1462. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 20243.
17. Crossley, S. A., Dufty, D. F., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Toward a new readability: A mixed model approach. In D. S. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 197-202). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
18. Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(1), 11-20-28.
19. Dam, G., & Kaufmann, S. (2008). Computer assessment of interview data using latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 8-20. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 40. 1. 8.
20. Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 187-209.
21. DuBay, W. H. 2004. The principles of readability. Retrieved 30 August 2010 from http://www. impact-information. com/impactinfo/readability02. pdf.
22. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT.
23. Feng, L. (2009). Automatic readability assessment for people with intellectual disabilities. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 93, 84-91. doi: 10. 1145/1531930. 1531940.
24. Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 285-307. doi: 10. 1080/01638539809545029.
25. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Matching books to readers: Using leveled books in guided reading, K-3. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
26. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers: Grades 3-6. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
27. Fry, E. (1990). A readability formula for short passages. Journal of Reading, 33(8), 594-97.
28. Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (1997). Cognition. In T. A. van Dijk & T. A. van Dijk (Eds.), Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1 (pp. 292-319). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
29. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(2), 193-202.
30. Green, A., Ünaldi, A., & Weir, C. (2010). Empiricism versus connoisseurship: Establishing the appropriacy of texts in tests of academic reading. Language Testing, 27(2), 191-211. doi: 10. 1177/0265532209349471.
31. Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K., Callan, J., Eskenazi, M. (2007). Combining lexical and grammatical features to improve readability measures for first and second language texts. In Proceedings of the NAACL Human Language Technology Conference (pp. 460-467). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
32. Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K., Eskenazi, M. (2008). An analysis of statistical models and features for reading difficulty prediction. In EANL '08 Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, June 19-19 (pp. 71-79). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
33. Hiebert, E. (1999). Text matters in learning to read. Reading Teacher, 52(6), 552-66.
34. Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D. (2010). An examination of current text difficulty indices with early reading texts (Reading Research Report No. 10-01). Santa Cruz, CA: TextProject, Inc.
35. Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 87. 4. 329.
36. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126-136. 2000-03003-01110. 1037/0022-0663. 92. 1. 126. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 92. 1. 126.
37. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5-23. doi: 10. 1080/0144341012468110. 1080/014434101246812001-16707-001. 10. 1080/01443410124681.
38. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579-588. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 93. 3. 57910. 1037/0022-0663. 93. 3. 5792001-18059-013. 10. 1037/0022-0663. 93. 3. 579.
39. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31. doi: 10. 1207/S15326985EP3801. 10. 1207/S15326985EP3801.
40. Kim, H., Goryachev, S., Rosemblat, G., Browne, A., Keselman, A., & Zeng-Treitler, Q. (2007). Beyond surface characteristics: A new health text-specific readability measurement. American Medical Informatics (AMIA) Annual Symposium (pp. 418-422). Washington, DC.
41. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 95. 2. 163.
42. Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 257-274. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0285(73)90036-4.
43. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 85. 5. 363.
44. Kirsch, I. S., & Mosenthal, T. B. (1990). Exploring document literacy: Variables underlying the performance of young adults. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 5-30.
45. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
46. Klare, G. (1974). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
47. Landauer, T., Foltz, P., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 259-284. doi: 10. 1080/01638539809545028.
48. Leahy, W., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401-418. 2003-00690-00410. 1002/acp. 877. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 877.
49. Lin, S., Su, C., Lai, Y., Yang, L., & Hsieh, S. (2009). Assessing text readability using hierarchical lexical relations retrieved from WordNet. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 14(1), 45-84.
50. Liu, X., Croft, W. B., Oh, P., Hart, D. (2004). Automatic recognition of reading levels from user queries. SIGIR '04 Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 548-549). New York, NY: ACM.
51. McClelland, J., & Rumelhart, D. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375-407. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 88. 5. 375.
52. McNamara, D., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288. doi: 10. 1080/01638539609544975.
53. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43. doi: 10. 1207/s1532690xci1401_1.
54. McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & McCarthy, P. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86. doi: 10. 1177/0741088309351547.
55. McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P., & Graesser, A. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292-330. doi: 10. 1080/01638530902959943.
56. Meyer, B., Marsiske, M., & Willis, S. (1993). Text processing variables predict the readability of everyday documents read by older adults. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(3), 234-249. doi: 10. 2307/747996.
57. Miller, T. (2003). Essay assessment with latent semantic analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(4), 495-512. doi: 10. 2190/W5AR-DYPW-40KX-FL99.
58. Miller, G. R., & Coleman, E. B. (1967). A set of thirty-six prose passages calibrated for complexity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 851-854.
59. Miller, J., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(4), 335-354. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 6. 4. 335.
60. Millis, K., Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Todaro, S., McNamara, D. (2007). Assessing and improving comprehension with latent semantic analysis. Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61. Milone, M. (2009). The development of ATOS: The renaissance readability formula. Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning.
62. Miltsakaki, E., Troutt, A. (2007). Read-X: Automatic evaluation of reading difficulty of web text. Proceedings of E-Learn 2007, sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Quebec, Canada.
63. Miltsakaki, E., & Troutt, A. (2008). Real-time web text classification and analysis of reading difficulty. In J. Tetreault, J. Burstein, & R. De Felice (Eds.), EANL '08 Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 89-97). Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.
64. Peterson, B. (1991). Selecting books for beginning readers: Children's literature suitable for young readers. In D. E. DeFord, C. A. Lyons, & G. S. Pinnell (Eds.), Bridges to literacy: Learning from reading recovery (pp. 119-147). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
65. Peterson, S., & Ostendorf, M. (2009). A machine learning approach to reading level assessment. Computer Speech and Language, 23(1), 89-106.
66. Rog, L., & Burton, W. (2002). Matching texts and readers: Leveling early reading materials for assessment and instruction. Reading Teacher, 55(4), 348-56.
67. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382-439.
68. Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89(1), 60-94. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 89. 1. 60.
69. School Renaissance Inst., Inc. (2000). The ATOS[TM] readability formula for books and how it compares to other formulas. Madison, WI: School Renaissance Inst., Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449468).
70. Schriver, K. A. (2000). Readability formulas in the new millennium: What's the use? ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 105-106.
71. Schwarm, S. E., Ostendorf, M. 2005. Reading level assessment using support vector machines and statistical language models. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for ComputationalLinguistics, pp. 523-530, Ann Arbor, MI.
72. Si, L., Callan, J. 2001. A statistical model for scientific readability. CIKM'01: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 574-576.
73. Smith, R. (2000a). How the Lexile framework operates. Popular Measurement, 3(1), 18-19.
74. Smith, R. (2000b). The Lexile community: From science to practice. Popular Measurement, 3(1), 20-21.
75. Smith, D., Stenner, A. J., Horabin, I., Smith, M. (1989). The Lexile scale in theory and practice: Final report. Washington, DC: MetaMetrics (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED307577).
76. Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Paper presented at the 4th North American Conference on Adolescent/Adult Literacy, Washington, DC.
77. Stenner, A. J. (1999). Instructional uses of the Lexile framework. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435976).
78. Stenner, A., Burdick, D. (1997). The objective measurement of reading comprehension: In response to technical questions raised by the California Department of Education Technical Study Group. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435978).
79. Stenner, A. J., Burdick, H., Sanford, E. E., Burdick, D. S. (2007). The Lexile framework for reading technical report. MetaMetrics, Inc.
80. vor der Brück, T., Hartrumpf, S., & Helbig, H. (2008). A readability checker with supervised learning using deep indicators. Informatica, 32(4), 429-435.
81. Wolfe, M., Schreiner, M., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., et al. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 309-336. doi: 10. 1080/01638539809545030.
82. Wright, B., Stenner, A. (1998). Readability and reading ability. Paper presented to the Australian Council on Education Research (ACER) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435979).
83. Wright, B., & Stenner, A. (2000). Lexile perspectives. Popular Measurement, 3(1), 16-17.