LiNT: een leesbaarheidsformule en een leesbaarheidsinstrument | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing
  4. Volume 45, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 45, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This paper introduces a Dutch readability formula and readability tool, LiNT (Leesbaarheidsinstrument voor Nederlandse Teksten). We first relate readability to the broader notion of comprehensibility, and discuss classic problems of readability research. The first and main focus of the paper is the LiNT-formula. We discuss how we prepared 120 texts, collected cloze comprehension data for these texts among 2700 middle school students, extracted text features and derived the LiNT-formula. This formula relates cloze comprehension to four text features, all of which have received support in earlier text comprehension research: word frequency, word concreteness, clause length and dependency length. We next discuss the interpretation of LiNT-scores, and the text complexity levels defined by it. We then examine ten well-known Dutch text genres in terms of LiNT-scores and LiNT-feature scores; and we report how text revisions affect both LiNT-scores and text comprehension levels. Our second topic is a short introduction to the LiNT-tool built around the formula. The tool aims at providing text complexity metrics to communication practitioners. Finally, we discuss whether our formula and tool succeed in avoiding the classic readability research problems, and how they may help to assess readability, diagnose readability problems and choose between text versions.

© Henk Pander Maat, Suzanne Kleijn en Servaas Frissen. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.3.002.MAAT
2023-12-01
2024-07-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/45/1/TVT2023.1.002.MAAT.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.3.002.MAAT&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Algemene Rekenkamer. (2016). Aanpak van laaggeletterdheid. Den Haag: Algemene Rekenkamer. https://www.rekenkamer.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2016/04/20/aanpak-van-laaggeletterdheid
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, R.C. & Davison, A. (1988). Conceptual and empirical bases of readability formulas. In: A.Davison & G.M.Green, Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23-53. Doi: 10.2307/415234
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachman, L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. Tesol Quarterly, 19(3), 535-556. Doi: 10.2307/3586277
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailin, A. & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Language and Communication, 21(3), 285-301. Doi: 10.1057/9781137388773
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2016). Readability: Text and context. Palgrave McMillan. Doi: 10.1057/9781137388773
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrett, G.F. and W. C.Riddell (2016). Ageing and Literacy Skills: Evidence from IALS, ALL and PIAAC. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 145. Paris: OECD Publishing. Doi: 10.1787/5jlphd2twps1-en.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., Spuijbroek, S., Bouwmeester, S., & Van der Geest, H. (2002). Understanding abstract expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 279-297. Doi: 10.1348/000709902158892
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Beishuizen, J., Asscher, J., Prinsen, F., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2003). Presence and place of main ideas and examples in study texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 291-316. Doi: 10.1348/000709903322275849
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blauberg, M.S. & Braine, M.D.S. (1974). Short-term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(4), 745-748. Doi: 10.1037/h0036091
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Durik, A. M. (2017). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brück, T. vor der, Hartrumpf, S., Helbig, H. (2008). A readability checker with supervised learning using deep indicators. Informatica, 32, 429-435.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Buisman, M. & Houtkoop, W. (2014). Laaggeletterdheid in kaart. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Expertisecentrum Beroepsonderwijs i.s.m. Stichting Lezen & Schrijven.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of educational psychology, 96(1), 31. Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins-Thompson, K. (2014). Computational assessment of text readability: A survey of current and future research. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165(2), 97-135. Doi: 10.1075/itl.165.2.01col
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Corsius, M., Van der Pool, E. & Sluis-Thiescheffer, W. (2023). Begrijp jij het? Mixed method monitor van overheidsteksten. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, elders in dit nummer.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. De Clercq, O., Hoste, V., Desmet, B., Van Oosten, P., De Cock, M., and Macken, L. (2014). Using the crowd for readability prediction. Natural Language Engineering, 20(3):293–325. Doi: 10.1017/s1351324912000344
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Greef, M., Segers, M. & Nijhuis, J. (2014). Feiten & cijfers laaggeletterdheid. Technical report, Stichting Lezen & Schrijven. https://www.lezenenschrijven.nl/uploads/editor/2018_SLS_Literatuurstudie_FeitenCijfers_interactief_DEF.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  18. De Jong, M. & Schellens, P.J. (1995). Met het oog op de lezer. pretestmethoden voor schriftelijk voorlichtingsmateriaal. Thesis Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Döring, M. (2021). How-to bureaucracy: a concept of citizens’ administrative literacy. Administration & Society53(8) 1155-1177. Doi: 10.1177/0095399721995460
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S25-S44. Doi:10.1002/rrq.411
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983a). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly18(3), 277-294. Doi: 10.2307/747389
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983b). Effects on text comprehension of differing proportions and locations of difficult vocabulary. Journal of Reading Behavior15(3), 19-39. Doi: 10.1080/10862968309547487
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gubbels, J., Van Langen, A.M.L., Maassen, N.A.M., & Meelissen, M.R.M. (2019). Resultaten PISA-2018 in vogelvlucht. Nijmegen: Expertisecentrum Nederlands. Doi: 10.3990/1.9789036549226
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jansen, C. & Lentz, L. (2008). Hoe begrijpelijk is mijn tekst? De opkomst, neergang en terugkeer van de leesbaarheidsformules. Onze Taal, 77(1), 4-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jansen, C. & Woudstra, E.T. (1979). Theorie en praktijk van het Nederlandse leesbaarheidsonderzoek. Een analyse van twee formules. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 1(1), 43-60.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Keenan, J. M., & Meenan, C. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of learning disabilities, 47(2), 125-135. Doi: 10.1177/0022219412439326
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kemper, S., Jackson, J.D., Cheung, H., & Anagnopoulos, C.A. (1993). Enhancing older adults’ reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 16(4), 405-428. Doi: 10.1080/01638539309544847
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, Y. S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310-333. Doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kintsch, W. & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L.G.Nillson (ed.), Memory: processes and problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 329-365.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257-274. Doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90036-4
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kirsch, I. (2005). Prose literacy, document literacy and quantitative literacy: understanding what was measured in IALS and ALL. In T.S.Urray, Y.Clermont & M.Binkley, International Adult Literacy Survey. Measuring Adult Literacy and Life Skills: New Frameworks for Assessment, Ottawa, Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 89-552-XPE, No. 13, pp. 88-136.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kleijn, S. (2018). Clozing in on readability: How linguistic features affect and predict text comprehension and on-line processing. LOT. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/363346
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kleijn, S., Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2019a). Cloze testing for comprehension assessment: The HyTeC-cloze. Language Testing, 36(4), 553-572. Doi: 10.1177/0265532219840382
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kleijn, S., Pander Maat, H.L.W., & Sanders, T.J.M. (2019b). Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 56(5-6), 447-464. Doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kraf, R. & Pander Maat, H. (2009). Leesbaarheidsonderzoek: oude problemen en nieuwe kansen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 31(2), 97-123. Doi: 10.5117/tvt2009.2.lees356
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lentz, L. (2021). Wat zijn begrijpelijkheidsvoorspellingen waard? Een vergelijkend onderzoek. Deel 4. https://didactieknederlands.nl/handboek/2021/10/wat-zijn-tekstbegrijpelijkheids-voorspellingen-waard-een-vergelijkend-onderzoek-deel-4/, geraadpleegd 20-3-2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Martinc, M., Pollak, S., & Robnik-Šikonja, M. (2021). Supervised and unsupervised neural approaches to text readability. Computational Linguistics, 47(1), 141-179.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. McKimmie, B. M., Antrobus, E., & Baguley, C. (2014). Objective and subjective comprehension of jury instructions in criminal trials. New Criminal Law Review, 17(2), 163-183. Doi: xo.525/nclr.20I4.17.2.J63
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292-330. Doi: 10.1080/01638530902959943
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Mosenthal, P. B. (1998). Defining prose task characteristics for use in computer-adaptive testing and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 269-307. Doi: 10.3102/00028312035002269
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Muijselaar, M. M., Swart, N. M., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., Droop, M., Verhoeven, L., & de Jong, P. F. (2017). Developmental relations between reading comprehension and reading strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(3), 194-209. Doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1278763
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Norman, S., Kemper, S., & Kynette, D. (1992). Adults’ reading comprehension: Effects of syntactic complexity and working memory. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), 258-265. doi:10.1093/geronj/47.4.P258
     [Google Scholar]
  44. OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pander Maat, H. (2017). Zinslengte en zinscomplexiteit: Een corpusbenadering. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 39(3), 297-328. doi: /10.5117/tvt2017.3.pand.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Pander Maat, H., & Dekker, N. (2016). Tekstgenres analyseren op lexicale complexiteit met T-Scan. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 38(3), 263-304. doi: 10.5117/tvt2016.3.pand.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Pander Maat, H., & Ditewig, S. (2017). Hoe worden onderwijsteksten vereenvoudigd, en helpt dat?Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 39(2), 245-263. Doi: 10.5117/TVT2017.2.MAAT.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pander Maat, H., Kraf, R. & Dekker, N. (2021). Handleiding T-Scan. https://github.com/UUDigitalHumanitieslab/tscan/blob/master/docs/tscanhandleiding.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pander Maat, H. & Gravekamp, J. (2022). Kan een tekst te simpel zijn? Hoe lager en hoger opgeleiden oordelen over eenvoudige taal. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 44(2), 62-90. Doi: 10.5117/tVt2022.2.002.MAAt
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pander Maat, H., Kraf, R., Van den Bosch, A., Dekker, N., Gompel, M. van, Kleijn, S., Sanders, T.J.M. & Sloot, K. van der (2014). T-Scan: a new tool for analyzing Dutch text. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 4, 53-74.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pander Maat, H. & Lentz, L. (2023). Welke effecten heeft het vereenvoudigen van de troonrede op tekstbegrip en tekstoordelen?https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/Troonrede_experiment_kort_verslag.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Perfetti, C. (2010). Decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension: The golden triangle of reading skill. In M. G.McKeown & L.Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 291–303). Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Potocki, A., Ros, C., Vibert, N., & Rouet, J. F. (2017). Children’s visual scanning of textual documents: effects of document organization, search goals, and metatextual knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(6), 480-497. Doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1334060
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Redish, J. (2000). Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 132 – 137.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Redish, J.C. & Selzer, J. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication, 32(3), 46-52. Doi: 10.1145/344599.344637
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85. Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Schmidt, A.M.G. (2009). Jip en Janneke 4. Em. Querido’s Uitgeverij BV.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. SCP (z.d.). De sociale staat van Nederland 2020. https://digitaal.scp.nl/ssn2020/onderwijs/, geraadpleegd op 20-11-2023.
  59. Sorensen, K., Van der Broucke, S., & Fullam, J. (2012). Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. bmc Public Health, 12, 80.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Stahl, S. A., Jacobson, M. G., Davis, C. E., & Davis, R. L. (1989). Prior knowledge and difficult vocabulary in the comprehension of unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly24(1), 27-43. Doi: 10.2307.748009
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Staphorsius, G. (1994). Leesbaarheid en leesvaardigheid. De ontwikkeling van een domeingericht meetinstrument. Cito, Arnhem.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Staphorsius, G. & Krom, R. (1985). Predictie van leesbaarheid. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 7(3), 192-211.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Stichting Lezen (2022). Verschillen in leesvaardigheid tussen opleidingstypen. https://www.lezen.nl/onderzoek/verschillen-in-leesvaardigheid-tussen-opleidingstypen/. Geraadpleegd 7-3-2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Taal voor allemaal (2022). Schrijven in Taal voor allemaal op maat. Derde versie, oktober2022. Te downloaden op https://www.taalvoorallemaal.com/taal-voor-allemaal.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Vajjala, S. (2021). Trends, limitations and open challenges in automatic readability assessment research. arXiv preprintarXiv:2105.00973.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Hauwermeiren, P. (1975), Leesbaarheidsformules voor informatieve Nederlandse teksten, in: Spektator4(1974-1975), 499-520.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Til & Van Boxtel (red.) (2015). Wetenschappelijke verantwoording. Toets 0 t/m 3, tweede generatie. Cito B.V., Arnhem.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. VO-Raad (2020). VO in cijfers: leerlingen en cijfers. https://www.vo-raad.nl/vo-in-cijfers-leerlingen-en-onderwijs. Geraadpleegd 12november2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Vrooman, C., Boelhouwer, J., Iedema, J., & Torre, A. V. D. (2023). Eigentijdse ongelijkheid. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Waller, J., Whitaker, K. L., Winstanley, K., Power, E., & Wardle, J. (2014). A survey study of women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain. British journal of cancer, 111(9), 1831-1835. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.482
     [Google Scholar]
  71. White, S. (2010). Understanding adult functional literacy: Connecting text features, task demands, and respondent skills. Routledge. Doi: 10.4324/9780203841884
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.3.002.MAAT
Loading
LiNT: een leesbaarheidsformule en een leesbaarheidsinstrument
TvT 45, 2 (2023); https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2023.3.002.MAAT
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.3.002.MAAT
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.3.002.MAAT
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): clause length; cloze testing; dependency length; readability formula; readability tool; text comprehension; text genre; word concreteness; word frequency

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error