Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing

Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation and Resolution

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 188-205

  McNamara, Danielle S ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899245960     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch011     Document Type: Chapter

References (66)

1. Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (in press). Dynamic effects of task type practice on the Japanese EFL university student's writing: Text analysis with Coh-Metrix. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Her-shey, PA: IGI Global.
2. Bell, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Gender and language. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
3. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, 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, 329-345. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.329
4. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
5. Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited, the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
6. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Interlanguage talk: What can breadth of knowledge features tell us about input and output differences? In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
8. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics.
9. D'Mello, S. K., & Graesser, A. C. (in press). Automated detection of cognitive-affective states from text dialogues. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Her-shey, PA: IGI Global.
10. DuBay, W. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.
11. th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 233-238). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
12. Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., & Mc-Namara, D. S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics.
13. Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Using temporal cohesion to predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 212-223. doi:10.3758/BF03193150
14. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Goldman, S., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (1999). Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Graesser, A. C. (in press). AutoTutor. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
17. Graesser, A. C., D'Mello, S. K., Hu, X., Cai, Z., Olney, A., & Morgam, B. (in press). AutoTutor. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
18. Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., & McDaniel, B. (2007). AutoTutor holds conversations with learners that are responsive to their cognitive and emotional states. Educational Technology, 47, 19-22.
20. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Automatic analyses of language, discourse, and situation models. In Auracher, J., & van Peer, W. (Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 72-88). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
21. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yang, Y., & Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 15, 199-213.
22. Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science.
23. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. (in preparation). Theoretical and automated dimensions of text difficulty: How easy are the texts we read?
24. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202. doi:10.3758/BF03195564
25. Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 231-263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Lu, Z., Jeon, M. G., & McDaniel, B. (2005). Learning while holding a conversation with a computer. In Pytlik Zillig, L., Bodvarsson, M., & Bruning, R. (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 143-167). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
27. Graesser, A. C., Rus, V., Cai, Z., & Hu, X. (in press). Question answering and asking. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
28. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
29. Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 114, 357-374. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.357
30. Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., Lewis, G. A., Lee, D. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A Coh-Metrix assessment of American and English/Welsh legal English. Coyote Papers: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. University of Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 40-54.
31. Hancock, J. T., Beaver, D. I., Chung, C. K., Frazee, J., Pennebaker, J. W., Graesser, A., & Cai, Z. (2010). Social language processing: A framework for analyzing the communication of terrorists and authoritarian regimes. Behavioral Science of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 2, 108-132. doi:10.1080/19434471003597415
32. Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Applying NLP metrics to students' self explanations. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
33. Jeon, M. (2008). Automated analyses of cohesion and coherence in tutorial dialogue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Memphis.
34. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. B., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300. doi:10.1080/10888430802132279
35. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
36. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (in press). Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C., Eds.). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
37. Klare, G. R. (1974-1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102. doi:10.2307/747086
38. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London, UK: Routledge.
39. Koslin, B. L., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An effectiveness measure in reading. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
40. Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Louwerse, M. M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315. doi:10.1515/cogl.2002.005
42. McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D., & Hempelman, C., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Evaluating givenness/newness. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
43. McCarthy, P. M., Guess, R. H., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). The components of paraphrase evaluations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 682-690. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.682
44. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381-392. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
45. McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). User language paraphrase corpus. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
46. McCarthy, P. M., Renner, A. M., Duncan, M. G., Duran, N. D., Lightman, E. J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Identifying topic sentencehood. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 647-664. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.647
47. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both highcoherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62. doi:10.1037/h0087352
48. McNamara, D. S. (in press). Computational methods to extract meaning from text and advance theories of human cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science.
49. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57-86. doi:10.1177/0741088309351547
50. st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
51. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287. doi:10.1080/01638539609544975
52. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Mc-Carthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330. doi:10.1080/01638530902959943
53. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
54. McNamara, D. S., Raine, R., Roscoe, R., Crossley, S., Jackson, G. T., & Dai, J. (in press). The Writing-Pal: Natural language algorithms to support intelligent tutoring on writing strategies. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
55. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Contributions of self-explanation to comprehension of high and low cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 641-667. doi:10.1080/01638531003628809
56. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
57. Renner, A., McCarthy, P., Boonthum, C., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Maximizing ANLP evaluation: Harmonizing flawed input. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
58. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
59. Shanahan, T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229-255. doi:10.2307/747485
60. Singer, M., & Leon, J. (2007). Psychological studies of higher language processes: Behavioral and empirical approaches. In Schmalhofer, F., & Perfetti, C. (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes. Mahwah, NJ.
61. Stenner, A. J., Burdick, H., Sanford, E. E., & Burdick, D. S. (2006). How accurate are Lexile text measures? Journal of Applied Measurement, 7(3), 307-322.
62. Ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing time in natural language: The dynamic interpretation of tense and aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic.
64. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3-62. doi:10.1080/03640210709336984
65. Weston, J., Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Computationally assessing human judgments of freewriting quality. In McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
66. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162