Computer analyses of text characteristics are often used by reading teachers, researchers, and policy makers when selecting texts for students. The authors of this article identify components of language, discourse, and cognition that underlie traditional automated metrics of text difficulty and their new Coh-Metrix system. Coh-Metrix analyzes texts on multiple measures of language and discourse that are aligned with multilevel theoretical frameworks of comprehension. The authors discuss five major factors that account for most of the variance in texts across grade levels and text categories: word concreteness, syntactic simplicity, referential cohesion, causal cohesion, and narrativity. They consider the importance of both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of texts for assigning the right text to the right student at the right time.
AdamsM. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
3.
BiancarosaG.SnowC. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy (Report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4.
BiberD. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.BrittM. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6–28.
6.
ClarkH. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
ColtheartM. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.
8.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
9.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.FishmanB. J.SchatschneiderC.UnderwoodP. (2007). The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315, 464–465.
10.
DeaneP.SheehanK. M.SabatiniJ.FutagiY.KostinI. (2006). Differences in text structure and its implications for assessment of struggling readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 257–275.
11.
DerG.EverittB. S. (2002). A handbook of statistical analyses using SAS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
12.
GoldmanS.GraesserA. C.van den BroekP. (Eds.). (1999). Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
GraesserA. C.CaiZ.LouwerseM.DanielF. (2006). Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A Web facility that helps survey methodologists improve the comprehensibility of questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 3–22.
14.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science.
15.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.
16.
GraesserA. C.SingerM.TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
17.
HaberlandtK. F.GraesserA. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374.
18.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19.
HiebertE. H.FisherC. W. (2007). The critical word factor in texts for beginning readers. Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 3–11.
20.
JurafskyD.MartinJ. (2008). Speech and language processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KlareG. R. (1974–1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62–102.
24.
KoslinB. I.ZenoS.KoslinS. (1987). The DRP: An effective measure in reading. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
25.
LandauerTMcNamaraD. SDennisSKintschW (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
LouwerseM. M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291–315.
27.
McCarthyP. M.JarvisS. (2007). vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24, 459–488.
28.
McNamaraD. S.GraesserA.LouwerseM. (in press). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In SabatiniJ. P.AlbroE. (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
29.
McNamaraD. S.KintschW. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–287.
30.
McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M.McCarthyP. M.GraesserA. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292–330.
31.
MeyerB. F.WijekumarK.MiddlemissW.HigleyK.LeiP.MeierC.. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62–92.
32.
MillerG. A.BeckwithR.FellbaumC.GrossD.MillerK. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235–244.
33.
MillisK.MaglianoJ.TodaroS. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 225–240.
34.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
O’BrienE. J.RizzellaM. L.AlbrechtJ. E.HalleranJ. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
37.
O’ReillyT.McNamaraD. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152.
38.
OzuruY.DempseyK.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.
39.
PearsonP. D.HiebertE. F. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base for practice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39, 286–294.
40.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.FrancisM. E. (2007). LIWC2007: Linguistic inquiry and word count. Austin, TX: LIWC.
41.
PentimontiJ. M.ZuckerT. A.JusticeL. M.KaderavekJ. N. (2010). Informational text use in preschool classroom read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 63, 656–665.
42.
PerfettiC. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
43.
PressleyM.WoodE.WoloshynV. E.MartinV.KingA.MenkeD. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–110.
44.
RappD. N.van den BroekP.McMasterK. L.KendeouP.EspinC. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 289–312.
45.
RaynerK.FoormanB.PerfettiC.PesetskyD.SeidenbergM. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.
46.
ResnickL. B. (2010). Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational Researcher, 39, 183–197.
47.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
48.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.
49.
StennerA. J. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Durham, NC: Metametrics, Inc. Paper presented at the California Comparability Symposium, October 1996. Retrieved from http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=re
50.
TannenD. (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
51.
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
52.
WileyJ.GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.SanchezC. A.AshI. K.HemmerichJ. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255–265.
53.
WilliamsJ. P.StaffordK. B.LauerK. D.HallK. M.PolliniS. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 1–20.
54.
ZipfG. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
55.
ZwaanR. A.RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.
