An Examination of Text Complexity as Characterized by Readability and Cohesion

REFERENCES

• Adams, M.J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allington, R. (2007). Intervention all day long: New hope for struggling readers. Voices from the Middle, 14, 7–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ardoin, S.P., Williams, J.C., Christ, T.J., Klubnik, C., & Wellborn, C. (2010). Examining readability estimates’ predictions of students’ oral reading rate: Spach, Lexile, and Forcast. School Psychology Review, 39, 277–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Omanson, R., & Pople, M. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 263–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begeny, J.C., & Greene, D.J. (2014). Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials? Psychology in the Schools, 51, 198–215. doi: 10.1002/pits.21740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betts, E. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. New York, NY: American Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Britton, B.K., Glynn, S.M., Meyer, B.J. F., & Penland, M.J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51–61. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.1.51
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callender, A.A., & McDaniel, M.A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, R.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 413–437. doi: 10.1080/10862969409547861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cataldo, M.G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cawley, J.F., & Parmar, R.W. (2001). Literacy proficiency and science for students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 105–125. doi: 10.1080/105735601300007589
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J.S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
   Google Scholar
• Clay, M.M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Compton, D.L., Appleton, A.C., & Hosp, M.K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second grade students who are average and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 176–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00102.x
   Google Scholar
• Cromley, J.G., Snyder-Hogan, L.E., & Luciw-Dubas, U.A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700. doi: 10.1037/a0019452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S.A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D.S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475–493. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187–209. doi: 10.2307/747483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foorman, B.R. (2009). Text difficulty in reading assessment. In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 231–247). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203–212. doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00020
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, D.A., Lu, X., & Eckert, S.A. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher, 42, 381–391. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13505684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202. doi: 10.3758/BF03195564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hare, V.C., Rabinowitz, M., Schieble, K.M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 72–88. doi: 10.2307/748011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, D.P., Wolfer, L.T., & Wolfe, M.F. (1996). Sourcebook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-Verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 489–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi: 10.2307/1164588
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E.H. (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity. The Reading Teacher, 66, 459–468. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.1149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, J.M, Betjemann, R.S., & 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.49.4.294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linderholm, T., Everson, M.G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revision on more and less skilled readers? Comprehension of easy and difficult text. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525–556. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37, 165–186. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loxterman, J.A., Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353–367. doi: 10.2307/747784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D.S. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2013). Coh-Metrix version 3.0. Retrieved from http://cohmetrix.com
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., McCarthy, P.M., & Graesser, A.C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292–330. doi: 10.1080/10573560590523603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesmer, H.A. (2005). Text accessibility and the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 1–5. doi: 10.1080/10573560590523603
   Google Scholar
• Mesmer, H.A., Cunningham, J.W., & Hiebert, E.H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 235–258. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MetaMetrics. (2013). Lexile Analyzer. Retrieved from: http://www.lexile.com/analyzer
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B.J. F., & Poon, L.W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B.J. F., Ray, M.N., & Middlemiss, W. (2012). Children's use of comparative text signals: the relationship between age and comprehension ability. Discourse, 10, 1–25. doi: 10.4000/discours.8637
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B.J. F., & Rice, G.E. (1989). Prose processing in adulthood: The text, the reader and the task. In L.W. Poon, D.C. Rubin, & B.A. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life (pp. 157–194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B.J. F., Wijekumar, K.K., & Lin, Y. (2011). Individualizing a web-based structure strategy intervention for fifth graders’ comprehension of nonfiction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 140–168. doi: 10.1037/a0021606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moje, E.B. (2006). Motivating texts, motivating contexts, motivating adolescents: An examination of the role of motivation in adolescent literacy practices and development. Perspectives, 32, 10–14.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. , Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards and glossary of key terms. , Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. New York, NY: Student Achievement Partners. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/Measures%20ofText%20Difficulty_final.2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Penning, M.J., & Raphael, T.E. (1991). The impact of language ability and text variables on sixth-grade students’ comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 397–417. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400005841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, D. K. (manuscript under review). Data-based decision making for middle school reading instruction: An exploratory study.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, D.K., & Petscher, Y. (2012). The influence of testing prompt and condition on middle school students’ retell performance. Reading Psychology, 33, 562–585. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2011.557333
   Google Scholar
• Reed, D.K, & Vaughn, S. (2012). Retell as an indicator of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 187–271. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.538780
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, D.K., Vaughn, S., & Petscher, Y. (2012). The validity of a holistically-scored retell protocol for determining the reading comprehension of middle school students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 76–89. doi: 10.1177/0731948711432509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richgels, D.J., McGee, L.M., Lomax, R.G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177–196. doi: 10.2307/747664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, S. (2011). What readers have and do: Effects of students’ verbal ability and reading time components on comprehension with and without text availability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 877–896. doi: 10.1037/a0023731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C.E., & Sweet, A.P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In C.E. Snow & A.P. Sweet (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• SparkNotes. (2011). ACT test prep: Critical reading. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/act/chapter13section2.rhtml
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng, Y., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Lee, C. (2005). The computational implementation of the landscape model: Modeling inferential processes and memory representations of text comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 277–286. doi: 10.3758/BF03192695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C.R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B.K. Britton & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards of coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In E.P. Lorch & E.J. O’Briend (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, C.H., & Meyer, B.J. F. (1980). Integrating different types of information in text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 263–275. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90221-2
   Google Scholar
• Walpole, S., Hayes, L., & Robnolt, V.J. (2006). Matching second graders to text: The utility of a group-administered comprehension measure. Research and Instruction, 46, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/19388070609558458
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, G.L. (2006). Aligning the journey with a destination: A model for K–16 reading standards. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, G.L., Fitzgerald, J., Stenner, A.J. (2013). The Common Core State Standards’ quantitative text complexity trajectory: Figuring out how much complexity is enough. Educational Researcher, 42, 59–69. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12466695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar