In this paper major factors interacting with readability measures in validity studies are identified and described. The basis for the analysis presented are thirty-six experimental studies of the effect of readability variables upon reader comprehension and/or retention. Emphasis is placed on the interacting nature of the factors involved.
References
1.
AllbaughN. J.Comprehension of three levels of social studies material as designated by a readability formula. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1968.
2.
BlueL. L.A study of the influence of certain factors in science materials on the reading comprehension of seventh grade pupils. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1964.
3.
BormuthJ. R.Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly1966, 1, 79–132.
4.
BrownD. J.Mirror, mirror. … Down with the linear model. American Educational Research Journal1975, 12, 491–505.
5.
CarrollJ. B.Defining language comprehension: Some speculations. Chapter 1 in CarrollJ. B.FreedleR. O. (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston and Sons, 1972.
6.
CervoneE. V.Achievement in and attitude towards senior high school U.S. history with reduced readability texts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1974.
7.
ColemanE. B.Improving comprehensibility by shortening sentences. Journal of Applied Psychology1962, 46, 131–134.
8.
ColemanE. B.Developing a technology of written instruction: Some determiners of the complexity of prose. In RothkopfE. Z.JohnsonP. E. (Eds.) Verbal learning research and the technology of written instruction. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1971.
9.
DenbowC. J.An experimental study of the effect of a repetition factor on the relationship between readability and listenability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 1973.
10.
DoyleM.Readability as a key for evaluating junior college freshman anthologies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1961.
11.
DrakeL. C.The effectiveness of a selected readability formula in the prediction of student success with technical and nontechnical reading materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1966.
12.
FeldmanM. E.The effects of learning by programmed and text format at three levels of difficulty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1964.
13.
FelixJ. L.The development and evaluation of a prescription for more readable reporting of research in guidance and personnel work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1967.
14.
FroelichD. M.A comparison of two methods of assessing textbook readability of selected college level electronics textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1970.
15.
FunkhouserG. R.MaccobyN.Study on communicating science information to a lay audience, Phase II. Report based on a study funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF GZ-996). Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University, September, 1971.
16.
GadlinH.IngleG.Through the one-way mirror: The limits of experimental self-reflection. American Psychologist1975, 30, 1003–1009.
17.
GeyerJ. R.The cloze procedure as a predictor of comprehension in secondary social studies material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1970. (See also Geyer, J. R., and Carey, A. R. Predicting and improving comprehensibility of social studies materials: the roles of cloze procedure and readability adjustment. Reading World 1972, 12, 85–93.).
18.
GilmanD. A.MoreauN.A.Effects of reducing verbal content in computer-assisted instruction. AV Communication Review1969, 17, 291–298.
19.
HayesG. W.The relationship of socio-economic status of pupils to then-comprehension of reference materials written at different levels of readability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1966.
20.
HillerJ. H.Learning from prose text: Effects of readability levels, inserted question difficulty, and individual differences. Journal of Educational Psychology1974, 66, 202–211.
21.
HitesR. W.The relation of readability and format to retention in communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University, 1950.
22.
JackmanM. E.The relation between maturity of content and simplicity of style in selected books of fiction. Library Quarterly1941, 11, 302–327.
23.
JohnsonK. H.RelovaR. P.Jr.StaffordJ. P.An analysis of the relationship between readability of Air Force procedural manuals and discrepancies involving non-compliance with the procedures. Unpublished master's thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, August, 1972. Document No. AD 750 917, National Technical Information Service.
24.
KernR. P.StichtT. G.FoxL. C.Readability, reading ability, and readership. Professional Paper 17–70. Alexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research Organization, June, 1970.
25.
KincaidJ. P.DelionbachL.J.Validation of the Automated Readability Index: a follow-up. Human Factors1973, 15, 17–20.
26.
KincaidJ. P.Van DeusenJ.ThomasG.LewisR.AndersonP. T.MoodyL.Use of the Automated Readability Index for evaluating peer-prepared materials for use in adult education. Final Report, Project No. 1-D-054, Grant No. OEG-4-71-0069. Statesboro, Georgia: Georgia Southern College, September, 1972.
27.
KincaidJ. P.YasutakeJ. Y.GeiselhartR.Use of the automated readability index to assess comprehensibility of Air Force Technical Orders. Technical Report SEG-TR-67–47. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Systems Engineering Group, November, 1967. (See also Smith, E. A., and Kincaid, J. P. Derivation and validation of the Automated Readability Index for use with technical materials. Human Factors 1970, 12, 457–464.).
28.
KlareG. R.The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1963.
29.
KlareG. R.Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly1974–1975, 1, 62–102.
30.
KlareG. R.A manual for readable writing. Glen Burnie, Maryland: REM Company (119A Roesler Road), 1975.
31.
KlareG. R.Some suggestions for clear writing found in fifteen source books. Unpublished and undated.
32.
KlareG. R.MabryJ. E.GustafsonL.M.The relationship of style difficulty to immediate retention and to acceptability of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology1955, 46, 287–295. (See also Klare, G. R., Mabry, J. E., and Gustafson, L. M. The relationship of verbal communication variables to immediate and delayed retention and to acceptability of technical materials. Research Bulletin AFPTRC-TR-54-103. San Antonio, Texas: USAF Personnel and Training Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base, December, 1954.).
33.
KlareG. R.ShufordE. H.NicholsW.H.The relationship of style difficulty, practice, and ability to efficiency of reading and to retention. Journal of Applied Psychology1957, 41, 222–226.
34.
KlareG. R.SmartK.Analysis of the readability level of selected USAFI instructional materials. The Journal of Educational Research1973, 67, 176.
35.
KulpM. J.The effects of position practice readability level on performance. Unpublished master's thesis, San Jose State University, 1974.
36.
LaubachR. S.A study of communication to adults of limited reading ability by specially written materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1963.
37.
MajorA. G.Readability of college general biology textbooks and the probable effect of readability elements on comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1955.
38.
MarshallJ. S.The relationship between readability and comprehension of high school physics textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1956.
39.
McCrackenR. A.An experiment with contrived readability in fifth and sixth grades. The Journal of Educational Research1959, 52, 277–278. (See also the doctoral dissertation by this author. Since the dissertation is not available through University Microfilms it has not been listed here; it was, however, borrowed for the analysis made for this paper.).
40.
McLaughlinG. H.Comparing styles of presenting technical information. Ergonomics1966, 9, 257–259.
41.
McTaggartA. C.An experimental validation of the Flesch and Dale-Chall readability formulas on high school health texts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1962.
42.
McWhorterK. T.The influence of passage organizational structure upon two estimates of readability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1974.
43.
MillerL. R.A comparative analysis of the predictive validities of four readability formulas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 1972. (Corrections were found to be needed in certain of the published criterion values borrowed for use in this dissertation. The corrections, however, did not alter the essential findings of the author.).
44.
MooreA. J.The preparation and evaluation of unit text materials for low-ability junior high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1961.
45.
PearsonP. D.The effects of grammatical complexity on children's comprehension, recall, and conception of semantic relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1969. (See also Pearson, P. D. The effects of grammatical complexity on children's comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly 1974–1975 10, 155–192.).
46.
PitcherR. W.An experimental investigation of the Flesch readability formula as related to adult materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, 1953.
47.
RobinsonH. A.HittlemanD.R.Readability of high school test passages before and after revision. Final Report, Project No. I-B-025, Contract No. OEA 2–71-0025. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, January, 1973. (See also Hittleman, D. R. The readability of subject matter material rewritten on the basis of students' oral reading miscues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, 1971. Since the report appeared to be a more extensive sequel to the dissertation, the analysis for this study was based upon the report.).
48.
RothkopfE. Z.Structural text features and the control of processes in learning from written materials. Chapter 12 in CarrollJ. B.FreedleR. O. (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston and Sons, 1972.
49.
SchwimmerS.The relationship of readability to reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1971.
50.
SiegelA. I.LautmanM. R.BurkettJ.R.Reading grade level adjustment and auditory supplementation as techniques for increasing textual comprehensibility. Journal of Educational Psychology1974, 66, 895–902.
51.
ThompsonE. N.Readability and accessory remarks: Factors in problem solving in arithmetic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1967.
52.
WatsonP. G.Readability and comprehension of written instructional materials in homogeneous groupings of vocational/technical students in an urban community college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1971.
53.
WilliamsD. L.The effect of rewritten science textbook material on the reading ability of sixth grade pupils. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1964.
