CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS?
A grade level of reading material is commonly estimated using one or more readability formulas, which purport to measure text difficulty based on specified text characteristics. However, there is limited direction for teachers and publishers regarding which readability formulas (if any) are appropri...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychology in the schools 2014-02, Vol.51 (2), p.198-215 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 215 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 198 |
container_title | Psychology in the schools |
container_volume | 51 |
creator | Begeny, John C. Greene, Diana J. |
description | A grade level of reading material is commonly estimated using one or more readability formulas, which purport to measure text difficulty based on specified text characteristics. However, there is limited direction for teachers and publishers regarding which readability formulas (if any) are appropriate indicators of actual text difficulty. Because oral reading fluency (ORF) is considered one primary indicator of an elementary aged student's overall reading ability, the purpose of this study was to assess the link between leveled reading passages and students’ actual ORF rates. ORF rates of 360 elementary‐aged students were used to determine whether reading passages at varying grade levels are, as would be predicted by readability levels, more or less difficult for students to read. Results showed that a small number of readability formulas were fairly good indicators of text, but this was only true at particular grade levels. Additionally, most of the readability formulas were more accurate for higher ability readers. One implication of the findings suggests that teachers should be cautious when making instructional decisions based on purported “grade‐leveled” text, and educational researchers and practitioners should strive to assess difficulty of text materials beyond simply using a readability formula. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/pits.21740 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1558998085</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1028357</ericid><sourcerecordid>1558998085</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-36b485d7dc7b57a8993f7900cb69025715f1dde2528dd60b74bb71576416aec13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkd2L1DAUxYMoOK6--C4URBCh603SNOmTdDptt053RqYtyz6FfqTQtTszJjPo_vdmtus8-CA-BXJ_55x7OQi9xXCJAcjn_XAwlwRzD56hGWYEXF8Af45mAJS6FAR7iV4ZcwcAPCBihm6icOVs4nARzrM8K2-dZL25rvKwcOaxUxXxwinXTlFFUVwUSZXnt04aVmnsLLIkyaIqt4p18miQrVLnOizjTRbmxZfX6EVfj0a9eXovUJXEZXTl5us0i8LcbT3GwaV-4wnW8a7lDeO1CALa8wCgbfwACOOY9bjrFGFEdJ0PDfeaxn5y38N-rVpML9DHyXevdz-Oyhzk_WBaNY71Vu2ORmLGrKmwh_8fKgKMA4u-_wu92x311h5iKeJbjOJT9qeJavXOGK16udfDfa0fJAZ5qkOe6pCPdVj4w5Nlbdp67HW9bQdzVhDh-SyA05bvJk7poT2P468YiKCM2zme5j-HUT38I1F-y8riT7Y7aQZzUL_Omlp_lz6nnMmbVSpXV5DMl3wpl_Q30nOn4w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1526898311</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS?</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Begeny, John C. ; Greene, Diana J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Begeny, John C. ; Greene, Diana J.</creatorcontrib><description>A grade level of reading material is commonly estimated using one or more readability formulas, which purport to measure text difficulty based on specified text characteristics. However, there is limited direction for teachers and publishers regarding which readability formulas (if any) are appropriate indicators of actual text difficulty. Because oral reading fluency (ORF) is considered one primary indicator of an elementary aged student's overall reading ability, the purpose of this study was to assess the link between leveled reading passages and students’ actual ORF rates. ORF rates of 360 elementary‐aged students were used to determine whether reading passages at varying grade levels are, as would be predicted by readability levels, more or less difficult for students to read. Results showed that a small number of readability formulas were fairly good indicators of text, but this was only true at particular grade levels. Additionally, most of the readability formulas were more accurate for higher ability readers. One implication of the findings suggests that teachers should be cautious when making instructional decisions based on purported “grade‐leveled” text, and educational researchers and practitioners should strive to assess difficulty of text materials beyond simply using a readability formula.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-3085</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6807</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/pits.21740</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PYSCBO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Biological and medical sciences ; Difficulty Level ; Educational psychology ; Elementary School Students ; Fluency ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Oral Reading ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychopedagogics. Didactics ; Readability ; Readability Formulas ; Reading Fluency ; Reading Materials ; Teachers</subject><ispartof>Psychology in the schools, 2014-02, Vol.51 (2), p.198-215</ispartof><rights>2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-36b485d7dc7b57a8993f7900cb69025715f1dde2528dd60b74bb71576416aec13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-36b485d7dc7b57a8993f7900cb69025715f1dde2528dd60b74bb71576416aec13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fpits.21740$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fpits.21740$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,30976,30977,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1028357$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28465905$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Begeny, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greene, Diana J.</creatorcontrib><title>CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS?</title><title>Psychology in the schools</title><addtitle>Psychol. Schs</addtitle><description>A grade level of reading material is commonly estimated using one or more readability formulas, which purport to measure text difficulty based on specified text characteristics. However, there is limited direction for teachers and publishers regarding which readability formulas (if any) are appropriate indicators of actual text difficulty. Because oral reading fluency (ORF) is considered one primary indicator of an elementary aged student's overall reading ability, the purpose of this study was to assess the link between leveled reading passages and students’ actual ORF rates. ORF rates of 360 elementary‐aged students were used to determine whether reading passages at varying grade levels are, as would be predicted by readability levels, more or less difficult for students to read. Results showed that a small number of readability formulas were fairly good indicators of text, but this was only true at particular grade levels. Additionally, most of the readability formulas were more accurate for higher ability readers. One implication of the findings suggests that teachers should be cautious when making instructional decisions based on purported “grade‐leveled” text, and educational researchers and practitioners should strive to assess difficulty of text materials beyond simply using a readability formula.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Difficulty Level</subject><subject>Educational psychology</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>Fluency</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Oral Reading</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Psychopedagogics. Didactics</subject><subject>Readability</subject><subject>Readability Formulas</subject><subject>Reading Fluency</subject><subject>Reading Materials</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><issn>0033-3085</issn><issn>1520-6807</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkd2L1DAUxYMoOK6--C4URBCh603SNOmTdDptt053RqYtyz6FfqTQtTszJjPo_vdmtus8-CA-BXJ_55x7OQi9xXCJAcjn_XAwlwRzD56hGWYEXF8Af45mAJS6FAR7iV4ZcwcAPCBihm6icOVs4nARzrM8K2-dZL25rvKwcOaxUxXxwinXTlFFUVwUSZXnt04aVmnsLLIkyaIqt4p18miQrVLnOizjTRbmxZfX6EVfj0a9eXovUJXEZXTl5us0i8LcbT3GwaV-4wnW8a7lDeO1CALa8wCgbfwACOOY9bjrFGFEdJ0PDfeaxn5y38N-rVpML9DHyXevdz-Oyhzk_WBaNY71Vu2ORmLGrKmwh_8fKgKMA4u-_wu92x311h5iKeJbjOJT9qeJavXOGK16udfDfa0fJAZ5qkOe6pCPdVj4w5Nlbdp67HW9bQdzVhDh-SyA05bvJk7poT2P468YiKCM2zme5j-HUT38I1F-y8riT7Y7aQZzUL_Omlp_lz6nnMmbVSpXV5DMl3wpl_Q30nOn4w</recordid><startdate>201402</startdate><enddate>201402</enddate><creator>Begeny, John C.</creator><creator>Greene, Diana J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201402</creationdate><title>CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS?</title><author>Begeny, John C. ; Greene, Diana J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-36b485d7dc7b57a8993f7900cb69025715f1dde2528dd60b74bb71576416aec13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Difficulty Level</topic><topic>Educational psychology</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>Fluency</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Oral Reading</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Psychopedagogics. Didactics</topic><topic>Readability</topic><topic>Readability Formulas</topic><topic>Reading Fluency</topic><topic>Reading Materials</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Begeny, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greene, Diana J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Psychology in the schools</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Begeny, John C.</au><au>Greene, Diana J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1028357</ericid><atitle>CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS?</atitle><jtitle>Psychology in the schools</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol. Schs</addtitle><date>2014-02</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>198</spage><epage>215</epage><pages>198-215</pages><issn>0033-3085</issn><eissn>1520-6807</eissn><coden>PYSCBO</coden><abstract>A grade level of reading material is commonly estimated using one or more readability formulas, which purport to measure text difficulty based on specified text characteristics. However, there is limited direction for teachers and publishers regarding which readability formulas (if any) are appropriate indicators of actual text difficulty. Because oral reading fluency (ORF) is considered one primary indicator of an elementary aged student's overall reading ability, the purpose of this study was to assess the link between leveled reading passages and students’ actual ORF rates. ORF rates of 360 elementary‐aged students were used to determine whether reading passages at varying grade levels are, as would be predicted by readability levels, more or less difficult for students to read. Results showed that a small number of readability formulas were fairly good indicators of text, but this was only true at particular grade levels. Additionally, most of the readability formulas were more accurate for higher ability readers. One implication of the findings suggests that teachers should be cautious when making instructional decisions based on purported “grade‐leveled” text, and educational researchers and practitioners should strive to assess difficulty of text materials beyond simply using a readability formula.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, NJ</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/pits.21740</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0033-3085 |
ispartof | Psychology in the schools, 2014-02, Vol.51 (2), p.198-215 |
issn | 0033-3085 1520-6807 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1558998085 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Accuracy Biological and medical sciences Difficulty Level Educational psychology Elementary School Students Fluency Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Oral Reading Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Psychopedagogics. Didactics Readability Readability Formulas Reading Fluency Reading Materials Teachers |
title | CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T23%3A28%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CAN%20READABILITY%20FORMULAS%20BE%20USED%20TO%20SUCCESSFULLY%20GAUGE%20DIFFICULTY%20OF%20READING%20MATERIALS?&rft.jtitle=Psychology%20in%20the%20schools&rft.au=Begeny,%20John%20C.&rft.date=2014-02&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=198&rft.epage=215&rft.pages=198-215&rft.issn=0033-3085&rft.eissn=1520-6807&rft.coden=PYSCBO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/pits.21740&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1558998085%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1526898311&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1028357&rfr_iscdi=true |