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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychology in the schools 2014-02, Vol.51 (2), p.198-215
Hauptverfasser: Begeny, John C., Greene, Diana J.
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 &amp; 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28465905$$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 &amp; 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