The Byte-Size Revolution: Computers and Readability

References

• Barry, J.G. & Stevenson, T.E. Using a computer to calculate the Dale-Chall Formula. Journal of Reading. December, 1975, 19, 218–222.
   Google Scholar
• Berkeley, E.C., Computer-assisted explanations. Cambridge: Information International, 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, G.L., and Tinker, M.A. Reading difficulties: Their diagnosis and correction. New York: Meredith Corporation, 1973.
   Google Scholar
• Branch, L.E. The Dale-Chall Readability Formula as programmed for the computer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Claremont Graduate School, 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Coke, E.U. & Rothkopf, E.Z. Note on a simple algorithm for a computer-produced reading ease score. Journal of Applied Psychology, June 1970, 54, 208–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dale, E. & Chali, J.S. A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, January 21 and February 17, 1978, 27, 11–20, 37–54.
   Google Scholar
• Danielson, W.A. & Bryan, S.D. Computer automation of two readability formulas. Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1963, 39, 201–206.
   Google Scholar
• Eberwein, L.D. The variability of readability of basal reader textbooks and how much teachers know about it. Reading World, March 1979, 18, 259–272.
   Google Scholar
• Entin, E.B. & Klare, G.R. Factor analyses of three correlation matrices of readability variables. Journal of Reading Behavior, Fall 1978, 10, 279–290.
   Google Scholar
• Fang, I.E. By computer: Flesch's Reading Ease score and a syllable counter. Behavioral Science, May 1968, 13, 249–251.
   Google Scholar
• Farr, J.N., Jenkins, J.J., & Paterson, D.G. Simplification of Flesh Reading Ease formula. Journal of Applied Psychology, October 1951, 35, 333–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felsenthal, N., Shamo, W.G., & Bittner, J.R. A comparison of award-winning radio commercials with their day-to-day counterparts. Journal of Broadcasting, 15, Summer 1971, 309–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, June 1948, 221–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry, E.B. A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading. April 1968, 11, 513–516, 575–578.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, E.B. Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, December 1977, 242–252.
   Google Scholar
• General Motors (Marketing Staff, Service Research Group). STAR: General Motors computerized simple test approach for readability, a tool for improved communications. Undated.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, A.J. & Jacobson, M.D. A framework for readability research: Moving beyond Herbert Spencer. Journal of Reading, February 1979, 22, 390–398.
   Google Scholar
• Klare, G. Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 1974–75, 10, 62–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konshak, D.J. Readability's usefulness for developmental composition. In Gwyn Enright (Ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association, 1978, 11, 105–110.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, N. Readability and comprehensibility. Journal of Reading. March 1979, 22, 542–544.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, N. & Glock, M.D. Comprehension of corrected discourse: A study into the relationships between the structure of text and information recalled. Reading Research Quarterly, 1978–79, 14, 10–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell, M. Readability: Have we gone too far? Journal of Reading, March 1978, 21, 525–530.
   Google Scholar
• McGlaughlin, G.H. SMOG grading — a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, May 1969, 12, 639–646.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. Readability: Some cautions for the content area teacher. Journal of Reading, April 1978, 21, 620–625.
   Google Scholar
• Spache, G. A new readability formula for primary grade reading materials. Elementary School Journal, March 1953, 53, 410–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Standal, T.C. Readability formulas: What's out, what's in? The Reading Teacher, March 1978, 31, 642–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S.E. & Frackenpohl, H. & White, C.E. A revised core vocabulary: A basic vocabulary for grades 1–8, an advanced vocabulary for grades 9–13. Research and Information Bulletin No. 5 (revised). New York: Educational Development Laboratories, 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Worthington, J.S. The readability of footnotes to financial statements and how to improve them. Journal of Reading, 20, March 1977, 469–479.
   Google Scholar