Cloze Scores of Nominalizations and Their Grammatical Transformations Using Active Verbs

Coleman, Edmund B.; Blumenfeld, Jacob

doi:10.2466/pr0.1963.13.3.651

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It accords fairly well with both intuition and previous research (cf. Coleman and Blumenfeld 1963). The contrasts in IF for native speakers on the different grammatical categories a r e all but non-existent if we ignore a few exceptional cases.…”

Section: Response Frequency Analysismentioning

confidence: 97%

Cloze Tests in English, Thai, and Vietnamese: Native and Non‐native Performance

et al. 1972

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A passage in English was translated into Vietnamese and Thai, and a passage in Thai and one in Vietnamese were each translated into English. Speakers of English (35 subjects), Thai (122), and Vietnamese (115) were tested on the cloze passages in their native languages, and the Thais and Vietnamese, all of whom had studied English as a foreign language (EFL) for at least six years, were tested in the English passages. Response types of natives and non‐natives were compared. Native speakers in contrast to non‐natives made almost no responses which failed to conform to at least some of the contextual constraints in the cloze tests. The errors of natives were not only fewer but tended to be different in type. Mean scores for native speakers on the originals and translations revealed that carefully translating a passage from one language into another yields cloze tests of approximately equal difficulty in both languages. Item analyses, and K‐R (20) measures of reliability ranging from .80 to .98 indicate considerable internal validity for the cloze tests used with non‐natives. A comparison of items (on the English passages only) by the grammatical category of the response(s) most frequently employed by natives, item facility for natives and non‐natives, and the determinacy of items stated in terms of the number of different correct responses given by native speakers, showed little obvious interdependence among these variables. The context of items was apparently much more important than any other single variable contributing to item difficulty.

show abstract

Section: Response Frequency Analysismentioning

confidence: 97%

Cloze Tests in English, Thai, and Vietnamese: Native and Non‐native Performance

et al. 1972

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Nominalization (Coleman and Blumenfeld 1963;Coleman, 1964) • Active and passive voice (Gough 1965, Coleman 1966, Clark and Haviland 1977, Hornby 1974). …”

Section: The Measurement Of Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring translation difficulty

Sun

Shreve

2014

Target

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Principles of Readability gives a brief introduction to the literacy studies in the U.S. and the research on readability and the readability formulas. Readers' CommentsPlease send all comments and suggestions regarding this document to:William RESEARCH SummaryOver 80 years of research and testing have contributed to the worldwide use in many languages of the readability formulas.They help us improve the text on the level of words and sentences, the first causes of reading difficulty.The principles of readability are in every style manual. Readability formulas are in every word processor. What is missing is the research and theory on which they stand. The Principles of ReadabilityWilliam H. DuBay IntroductionIn 1998, traffic accidents caused 46 percent of all accidental deaths of infants and children aged 1 to 14 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2000). One study (Johnston et al. 1994) showed that the single strongest risk factor for injury in a traffic accident is the improper use of child-safety seats. Another study (Kahane 1986) showed that, when correctly used, child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent and hospitalization by 67 percent.To be effective, however, the seats must be installed correctly. Other studies, showed that 79 to 94 percent of car seats are used improperly (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1996, Decina and Knoebel 1997, Lane et al. 2000.Public-health specialists Dr. Mark Wegner and Deborah Girasek (2003) suspected that poor comprehension of the installation instructions might contribute to this problem. They looked into the readability of the instructions and published their findings in the medical journal Pediatrics. The story was covered widely in the media.The authors referred to the National Adult Literacy Study (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1993), which states the average adult in the U.S. reads at the 7 th grade level. They also cited experts in health literacy who recommend that materials for the public be written at the fifth or sixth-grade reading level (Doak et al., 1996;Weiss and Coyne, 1997).Their study found that the average reading level of the 107 instructions they examined was the 10 th grade, too difficult for 80 percent adult readers in the U.S. When texts exceed the reading ability of readers, they usually stop reading. The authors did not address the design, completeness, or the organization of the instructions. They did not say that the instructions were badly written. Armed with the SMOG readability formula, they found the instructions were written at the wrong grade level. You can be sure the manufacturers of the car safety seats are scrambling to re-write their instructions. Many experts, through much research, have compiled golden rules of documentation writing. These rules apply regardless of medium:• Use short, simple, familiar words• Avoid jargon.• Use culture-and-gender-neutral language.• Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.• Use simple sentences, active voice, and present tens...

show abstract

“…Two methods are commonly used to evaluate the readability of text documents: readability formulas (Chall 1988;Davison 1984;Klare 1975) and the cloze test (Taylor 1953;Coleman and Blumenfeld 1963). Several readability formulas have been developed over the years; however, in this section, we shall highlight the shortcomings of some of the widely used readability formulas.…”

Section: Readability Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

A user-centric evaluation of the readability of privacy policies in popular web sites

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on a formal subject-based experiment, which seeks to evaluate the readability of privacy policy statements found on the Internet. This experiment uses 50 participants and privacy policies collected from 10 of the most popular web sites on the Internet. It evaluates, using a cloze test, the subjects' ability to comprehend the content of these privacy policies. The paper also compares its results with the results from previous studies on this topic. In general, it finds that privacy policies are "difficult" to comprehend.

show abstract

Cloze Scores of Nominalizations and Their Grammatical Transformations Using Active Verbs

Cited by 26 publications

References 1 publication

Cloze Tests in English, Thai, and Vietnamese: Native and Non‐native Performance

Cloze Tests in English, Thai, and Vietnamese: Native and Non‐native Performance

Measuring translation difficulty

A user-centric evaluation of the readability of privacy policies in popular web sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About