DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Readability Indices with Grades 1-5 Narrative and Expository Texts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Readability Indices with Grades 1-5 Narrative and Expository Texts Wayne State University Wayne State University Dissertations January 2018 Comparison Of Readability Indices With Grades 1-5 Narrative And Expository Texts Susan Beth Harden Wayne State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Elementary Education and Teaching Commons Recommended Citation Harden, Susan Beth, "Comparison Of Readability Indices With Grades 1-5 Narrative And Expository Texts" (2018). Wayne State University Dissertations. 2102. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/2102 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. COMPARISON OF READABILITY INDICES WITH GRADES 1-5 NARRATIVE AND EXPOSITORY TEXTS by SUSAN HARDEN DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2018 MAJOR: EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND RESEARCH Approved By: Advisor Date © COPYRIGHT BY SUSAN HARDEN 2018 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family, the ones who have provided constant support of the time and energy I have put into this work. To my husband Eric W. Harden, who has not only supported me emotionally and intellectually, but also selflessly provided the financial support for this endeavor. To my children, Faith, Lauren and Andrew, who have sacrificed much to allow me to spend the time and energy required to complete this work. I love you to Heaven and back for allowing me to reach this goal! To my mother, Janet Rohde, who has encouraged me regularly to keep pressing on and finish strong. Your constant support is greatly appreciated. I have learned the importance of a great education from you. And finally, to the memory of my father, Robert Rohde and my grandmother, Grace Baker. I miss you both terribly but still feel your love and support daily. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This journey would not have been possible without the encouragement, teaching, and support of Dr. Shlomo Sawilowsky. Dr. Sawilowsky started me on the path to this degree and he has seen me through until the end. I am truly thankful for all the time and knowledge he has bestowed upon me during this process. And to my committee members (Dr. Jazlin Ebenezer, Dr. Monte Piliawsky, and Dr. Elizabeth McQuillen), I thank you for your willingness to mentor me through this process. Your guidance and input have been priceless. You each bestowed upon me great knowledge and have helped me grow academically. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 Motivation and Interest ............................................................................................................... 3 Text Complexity ........................................................................................................................... 4 Readability .................................................................................................................................. 6 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 8 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................................... 9 Assumptions and Limitations .................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 “Review of Literature” ........................................................................................... 12 Policy ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Readability ................................................................................................................................ 23 Text Readability Formulas and Text Simplification .................................................................. 28 Text Complexity ......................................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 3 “Methodology” ....................................................................................................... 36 iv Design and Sample .................................................................................................................... 36 Agreement and Bland-Altman Method ...................................................................................... 38 Reliability of Readability Indices .............................................................................................. 40 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 43 CHAPTER 4 “Results” ................................................................................................................. 46 Unintended Findings ................................................................................................................. 46 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 46 Spache vs. Gunning Fog............................................................................................................ 48 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level vs. Fry Graph .............................................................................. 52 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level vs. Dale-Chall ............................................................................. 55 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level vs. Spache ................................................................................... 57 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level vs. Gunning Fog.......................................................................... 60 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level vs. Smog ...................................................................................... 62 Fry Graph vs. Dale-Chall ......................................................................................................... 64 Fry Graph vs. Spache ................................................................................................................ 67 Fry Graph vs. Gunning Fog ...................................................................................................... 69 Fry Graph vs. Smog .................................................................................................................. 72 Dale-Chall vs. Spache ............................................................................................................... 74 Dale-Chall vs. Gunning Fog ..................................................................................................... 77 v Dale-Chall vs. Smog .................................................................................................................. 79 Spache vs. Smog ........................................................................................................................ 82 Gunning Fog vs. Smog .............................................................................................................. 84 CHAPTER 5 “Conclusions and Recommendations” ................................................................... 87 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................. 91 Further Research....................................................................................................................... 92 APPENDIX A: BLAND-ALTMAN PLOTS FOR INDIVIDUAL GRADE LEVELS AND GENRES ....................................................................................................................................... 94 APPENDIX B: BLAND-ALTMAN PLOTS BY GENRE, ALL GRADE LEVELS ................ 114 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 125 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ 135 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT ................................................................................... 136 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Articles Included in Review of Literature. ..................................................................... 12 Table 2: Critical Analysis of Literature Review Articles ............................................................. 13 Table 3: Key Questions for Literature Review ............................................................................. 18 Table 4:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Review of Patient Education Materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    An Original Study D. P. Feghhi et al Critical Review of Patient Education Materials From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Daniel P. Feghhi, MD, Nitin Agarwal, MD, David R. Hansberry, MD, PhD, Wayne S. Berberian, MD, and Sanjeev Sabharwal, MD the medical conditions and symptoms they are experiencing.3 Abstract About 80% of Americans report using an Internet resource to We performed an expanded readability analysis to seek answers to health questions.3,4 Studies have identified a determine if the American Academy of Orthopae- correlation between “health literacy” and clinical outcomes: dic Surgeons (AAOS) had sufficiently improved its lower health literacy is associated with adverse patient out- patient education materials since they were originally comes, such as more frequent hospitalizations and emergency studied in 2007. department visits, and higher health literacy is associated with 4-6 In March 2013, we downloaded patient education more favorable patient outcomes. Given these findings, it is materials from the AAOS patient information website, essential to ensure that the health care information being ac- cessed is easily comprehended. Your Orthopaedic Connection. Using 10 different Orthopedic conditions are among the most common condi- readability formulas, we found that the mean grade tions that cause patients to seek medical care.6-9 Many ortho- level of patient education materials on the website is pedic conditions call for surgical intervention. Controversy 8.84. Flesch-Kincaid analysis showed a mean grade arises regarding nonoperative and operative treatments for level of 9.98 (range, 6.6-12.6). Nine other readability certain diseases. Once a patient has been diagnosed with a analyses showed a mean reading level of 7.7 (range, particular injury or condition, it is almost instinctive to seek 6.5-13.7).
    [Show full text]
  • Text Complexity by Dr
    Author Monographs Text Complexity By Dr. Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago Member, National Reading Panel; President, International Reading Association, 2006 Chair, National Literacy Panel and National Early Literacy Panel It would be too costly and All texts are not equal. Some texts inconvenient to perform the above- are harder to read and comprehend. explained process for every text, of Just as there are individual differences course, so a second fundamental in children, there are individual premise of readability measurement differences in the texts that we ask is that the measure must specifically children to read. Some children summarize only text features or read better than others, and there characteristics, and not how easily are a variety of reasons for these read the text has been in the past. On differences in reading abilities. The the basis of this enumeration of text same is true of texts. Some texts are features, the formula has successfully easier or harder, and there are several predicted reader comprehension for reasons for these differences. texts. The purpose of this essay is to describe what factors Readability measures have evolved since they first cause texts to differ and to explore the relationship of appeared. Now, most readability formulas only measure text difficulty and children’s learning. two factors: word complexity and sentence complexity (Klare, 1984). Thus, measuring the readability or What makes text complex? complexity of a text involves an evaluation of the words: counting the average number of letters or syllables, Since the 1920s, there has been interest in measuring checking the frequency of the words (common words text difficulty or readability (Lively & Pressey, 1923).
    [Show full text]
  • The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful
    The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful Stephen Krashen CSLA (California School Library Association) Journal 24(2): 25-26, 2001 The Lexile Framework attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It is a readability formula that "stands firmly in the tradition of classic readability formulas" (Stenner, 1996, p. 23) that assigns reading levels to texts based on word frequency and sentence length. The Lexile Framework is intended to help teachers and librarians recommend supplementary reading that is at the right reading level: "For example, an eighth-grade girl who is interested in sports but is not reading at grade level might be able to handle a biography of a famous athlete. The teacher may not know, however, whether that biography is too difficult or too easy for the student. " All the teacher has to do is use the Lexile Framework on the text and the student and select a book at the right level. Then, "as the reader improves, new titles with higher text measures can be chosen to match the growing person (sic) measure, thus keeping the comprehension rate at the chosen level." (Stenner, 1996, p. 22). Not Necessary None of this is necessary, and it is probably harmful. There is a much easier way for readers to select texts: Are they comprehensible and interesting? It doesn't take long for a reader to determine this: All it takes is sampling a little of the text (reading it). Our eighth grader simply needs to have a look at a few biographies. Teachers and librarians can certainly help in text selection and they do this all the time, with great success.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Check a Readability Score with Microsoft Word
    How to Check a Readability Score with Microsoft Word Step 1: Open your Informed Consent document in Word. Step 2: Look at the top tool bar and click “Review.” It should the ninth option at the top in Word 365. Step 3: Click “Check Document” or “Spelling Check.” It should be on the right at the very top with the image of a green check mark and the letters ‘abc’. Step 4: A small window should pop up that reads “Readability Statistics,” like the one to the right. *If this window does not automatically pop up for you, try these steps: (1) Go to “File,” then “Options.” (2) Select “Proofing.” (3) Under “When correcting spelling and grammar in Word,” make sure the “Check grammar with spelling” check-box is selected. (4) Select “Show readability statistics.” (5) Try starting over with Step 2. If you still can’t get the readability statistics to show, please click the help button in the top tool bar for step-by-step instructions on how to enable this feature. Step 5: “Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level” in this window is the number the IRB is concerned with regarding readability for the population you are studying. Guidelines - Any population that requires an advanced degree (2-year degree or more) must have a reading level of 12.0 or below. - Children or other special populations (the elderly, prison inmates, etc.) must have a reading level of 3.0 or below. - The general public or any other population that does not fit into the other two categories must have a reading level of 8.0 or below.
    [Show full text]
  • Plain Language Overview and Analysis
    Plain Language Overview and Analysis An assessment of 13 College of Liberal Arts department pages Prepared for CLA Web Champions Group Prepared by Jonathan Nixon September 17, 2019 Table of Contents Section I – Introduction to the Analysis Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................................1 Significance of the Analysis.................................................................................................................1 Scope of the Analysis............................................................................................................................2 Evaluation Methods..............................................................................................................................3 Limitations of the Analysis..................................................................................................................6 Section II – Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Introduction...........................................................................................................................................7 Findings..................................................................................................................................................7 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Smog Readability Formula
    The Smog Readability Formula Adapted from McLaughlin, G. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12 (8). 639-646. The SMOG conversion tables were developed by Harold C. McGraw, Office of Educational Research, Baltimore Co. Public Schools, Towson, MD. The SMOG Readability Formula is a simple method you can use to determine the reading level of your written materials. If a person reads at or above a grade level, they will understand 90-100% of the information. Generally, you need to aim for a reading level of sixth grade or less. In addition, to ensure that the text is clear and readable, read your draft aloud. How to use the SMOG formula: 1. Count 10 sentences in a row near the beginning of your material. Count 10 sentences in the middle. Count 10 sentences near the end. (30 total sentences) 2. Count every word with three or more syllables in each group of sentences, even if the same word appears more than once. 3. Add the total number of words counted. Use the SMOG Conversion Table I to find the grade level. If your material has fewer than 30 sentences, follow the instructions for "SMOG on Shorter Passages" and use SMOG Conversion Table II. Word Counting Rules: • A sentence is any group of words ending with a period, exclamation point, or question mark. • Words with hyphens count-as-one-word. • Proper nouns are counted. • Read numbers out loud to decide the number of syllables. • In long sentences with colons or semicolons followed by a list, count each part of the list with the beginning phrase of the sentence as an individual sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Readability of Ebola Information on Websites of Public Health Agencies, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Europe
    Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2107.141829 Readability of Ebola Information on Websites of Public Health Agencies, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Europe Technical Appendix Websites Reviewed European Centre for Disease Control. Ebola factsheet for the general public [cited 2014 Sep 1]. http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/ebola_marburg_fevers/factsheet_general_ public/Pages/factsheet-general-public.aspx Centers for Disease Prevention and Control. Questions and answers on Ebola [cited 2014 Sep 1]. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa.html Public Health England. Ebola: public health questions and answers [cited 2014 Sep 1]. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370777 /141104__Ebola_QA_For_Public_LF.pdf Government of Canada. Ebola virus disease [cited 2014 Sep 1]. http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/diseases-conditions-maladies-affections/disease- maladie/ebola/index-eng.php Government of Australia. Ebolavirus disease outbreaks in West Africa – important information for travellers, patients and consumers [cited 2014 Nov 11]. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/2974D69E347C60F6 CA257D1E00106707/$File/ebola-travellers-patients-consumers.pdf World Health Organization. Advice for individuals and families. Ebola guidance package [cited 2014 Nov 11]. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/136474/1/WHO_EVD_Guidance_AdviceFa m_14.1_eng.pdf?ua = 1 Page 1 of 2 Readability Indicator Definitions Gunning FOG Index, which correlates aspects of a text with its grade level. Flesch Reading Ease score, which measures readability on a scale from 0 to 100 (100 being easiest to read, where a score of 60–70 is considered well written and easy to follow by the average reader).
    [Show full text]
  • Generating and Rendering Readability Scores for Project Gutenberg Texts
    Generating and Rendering Readability Scores for Project Gutenberg Texts Ronald P. Reck RRecktek LLC. [email protected] and Ruth A. Reck University of California Davis, CA 95616 U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract Here the frequency distribution functions have been calculated for seven different types of readability measurements for over fourteen thousand texts from Project Gutenberg1 (PG). Other supporting measurements were also obtained: the average characters per word, the words per sentence, and the syllables per word. Three types of distributions have been demonstrated from the analysis of the metadata. While there are similarities among some of the scores, there is considerable interpretation yet to be made. The most complex and unique distribution function is found for the Flesch Reading Ease scores. Because of the computing intensity necessary to obtain these distributions it is only in the present age of information science that such a broad brush of characterization of a billion word data source can be made. It is essential that these be sorted by language to better interpret the meaning of the distributions. 1. Introduction Various readability measurements can serve as indicators to quantify the relative accessibility of written information. However, domain specific attributes such as complex terminology or language can direct readability scores towards higher values than the actual complexity of the text warrants. For instance, scientific writing is likely to contain long words that may not significantly increase the complexity of the writing to those familiar with the terms but make the readability value appear greater. Despite this and other limitations, readability measurements remain useful attributes for describing text, especially when the values are regarded as relative measurements from within a specific type of writing or language.
    [Show full text]
  • SUFE and the Internet: Are Healthcare Information Websites Accessible to Parents?
    Open access Original research bmjpo: first published as 10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000782 on 20 October 2020. Downloaded from SUFE and the internet: are healthcare information websites accessible to parents? Andrea Mc Carthy , Colm Taylor To cite: Mc Carthy A, Taylor C. ABSTRACT What is known about the subject? SUFE and the internet: are Background Slipped upper femoral epiphysis is healthcare information an adolescent hip disorder requiring rapid surgical ► Slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE) is a complex websites accessible to intervention. Faced with the prospect of their child parents? BMJ Paediatrics Open adolescent hip disorder. Caregivers may turn to the undergoing surgery, many fearful parents will turn to the 2020;4:e000782. doi:10.1136/ internet for information but find healthcare websites internet to provide information and reassurance. Previous bmjpo-2020-000782 offer conflicting advice, resulting in increased anx- studies have shown the orthopaedic information can be iety and reduced postoperative rehab compliance. ► Additional material is difficult to comprehend. published online only. To view Objective Assess the readability of healthcare websites please visit the journal online regarding slipped upper femoral epiphysis. (http:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/ Methods The term Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis was What this study adds? bmjpo- 2020- 000782). searched in Google, Bing and Yahoo. The websites were evaluated using readability software with seven specialised ► The study shows that for websites regarding SUFE, the average Flesich Read Ease Score score is 52 Received 30 June 2020 readability tests including the Flesch- Kincaid Reading and the average reading grade level is 8.67. Both of Revised 28 August 2020 Grade Level, the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Simple Accepted 6 September 2020 Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman- Liau Index, Automated these figures do not comply with acceptable stan- Readability Index and the Gunning Fog Index.
    [Show full text]
  • Readability Level Reading Formulas
    Tool 13. Assessing Readability Level Reading Formulas Readability measures are primarily based on factors such as the complexity of the printed materials by measuring the number of words in the sentence and the number of letters or syllables per word (i.e., as a reflection of word frequency.) A “score” reflects the grade level of the printed material. • The Flesch Reading Ease The Flesch Reading Ease is one of the oldest and most accurate formulas. It is a simple approach to assess the grade-level of the reader. • The Fry Graph Readability Formula Edward Fry developed readability tests based on graph. This graph-based test determined readability through high school. In 1977, Fry extended the graph to test through the college years. • The SMOG Readability Formula This is a simple method used to determine the reading level of written materials. The SMOG Readability Formula was developed by Harold C. McGraw. These formulas can be helpful but should not be your only evaluation tool because reading level is only one aspect of readability, and readability formulas are not always accurate with forms that have short sentences or phrases. The Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula The specific mathematical formula is: RE = 206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6 x ASW) RE = Readability Ease ASL = Average Sentence Length (i.e., the number of words divided by the number of sentences) ASW = Average number of syllables per word (i.e., the number of syllables divided by the number of words.) The output, i.e., RE is a number ranging from 0 to 100.
    [Show full text]
  • A Text Readability Continuum for Postsecondary Readiness
    Volume 19 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2008 ✤ pp. 602–632 A Text Readability Continuum for Postsecondary Readiness Gary L. Williamson North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Over the last 3 decades, a number of authors claimed that too many students were unprepared for the postsecondary world (e.g., Bock & Moore, 1986; Greene & Forster, 2003; Sum, 1999; oU.S. Department of Labor, 1991). To support this contention, some reports focused on student behaviors and attainments, such as high school dropout rates and/or graduation rates (e.g., Greene & Forster, 2003; Horn, 1998). Some focused on anal- ogous later events, such as the rates at which college students require remediation or fail to complete their programs of study (Parsad & Lewis, 2003; Rosenbaum, 2004). Others focused on the skill demands of the workplace in contrast to what stu- dents have been taught in school (Parker, 2004; Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2004). Still others focused on the literacy demands of citizenship (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993). Traditional indicators of college readiness have included college transcripts, student course completions, and student performance (McCormick, 1999; Sanderson, Dugoni, Rasinski, Taylor, & Carroll, 1996). However, no one has examined the text demands of high school in contrast to those of college, the workplace, the mili- 602 Copyright © 2008 Prufrock Press, P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714 Although high school graduates may be able to successfully navigate high school course content, they may not be prepared to handle the readability of texts they encounter in various postsecondary endeavors. The average readability of high school texts is lower than the average readability of citizenship, workplace, community college, university, and graduate admissions text collections.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLES Readability, Logodiversity, and the Effectiveness of College
    ARTICLES Readability, Logodiversity, and the Effectiveness of College Science Textbooks Rebecca S. Burton Department of Biology, Alverno College, PO Box 343922, Milwaukee, WI 53234-3922 [email protected] Abstract: Textbooks are required in most introductory college science courses, but students may not be benefitting from the textbooks as much as their instructors might hope. Word use in the textbooks may influence textbook effectiveness. I tested whether either the amount of technical vocabulary or the readability had a significant effect on students’ ability to learn general biology concepts. I provided different versions of the same reading, then tested students on the content. On the topic with the lowest overall post-reading quiz scores, students who received readings with less technical vocabulary outperformed their peers (P = 0.03). Textbooks did not appear to be an important source of learning for students in this study; fewer than half the students reported that they were reading the assigned chapters near the start of the semester, and this number declined sharply. Students had difficulty correctly answering questions immediately after reading brief selections, indicating a low level of comprehension. Changes in textbooks and teaching strategies may improve student learning and reading compliance. Key words: readability, logodiversity, textbooks INTRODUCTION these grade level scores are based on length of Unless students can learn from their textbooks, sentences and length of words. These indices are there is little purpose in requiring them. generally intended for use in evaluating materials for Overwhelmingly, introductory college science K-12 schools or for the general public. Making courses use textbooks, but questions remain about sentences shorter and simpler will result in a lower what aspects of the actual prose result in greater grade level score, but may not make college biology student learning of scientific concepts.
    [Show full text]