• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication >How Consistent Are the Best-Known Readability Equations in Estimating the Readability of Design Standards?
【24h】

How Consistent Are the Best-Known Readability Equations in Estimating the Readability of Design Standards?

机译：在估算设计标准的可读性时，最知名的可读性方程式的一致性如何？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Research problem: Readability equations are widely used to compute how well readers will be able to understand written materials. Those equations were usually developed for nontechnical materials, namely, textbooks for elementary, middle, and high schools. This study examines to what extent computerized readability predictions are consistent for highly technical material—selected Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International Standards Organization (ISO) Recommended Practices and Standards relating to driver interfaces. Literature review: A review of original sources of readability equations revealed a lack of specific criteria in counting various punctuation and text elements, leading to inconsistent readability scores. Few studies on the reliability of readability equations have identified this problem, and even fewer have systematically investigated the extent of the problem and the reasons why it occurs. Research questions: (1) Do the most commonly used equations give identical readability scores? (2) How do the scores for each readability equation vary with readability tools? (3) If there are differences between readability tools, why do they occur? (4) How does the score vary with the length of passage examined? Method: Passages of varying lengths from 12 selected SAE and ISO Recommended Practices and Standards were examined using five readability equations (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, SMOG Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index) implemented five ways (four online readability tools and Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows). In addition, short test passages of text were used to understand how different readability tools counted text elements, such as words and sentences. Results and conclusions: The mean readability scores of the passages from those 12 SAE and ISO Recommended Practices and Standards ranged from the 10th grade reading level to about 15th. The mean grade reading levels computed across the websites were: Flesch-Kincaid 12.8, Gunning Fog 15.1 SMOG 12.6, Coleman-Liau 13.7, and Automated Readability Index 12.3. Readability score estimates became more consistent as the length of the passage examined increased, with no noteworthy improvements beyond 900 words. Among the five readability tools, scores typically differed by two grade levels, but the scores should have been the same. These differences were due to how compound and hyphenated words, slashes, numbers, abbreviations and acronyms, and URLs were counted, as well other punctuation and text elements. These differences occurred because the sources for these equations often did not specify how to score various punctuation and text elements. Of the tools examined, the authors recommend Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows if the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is required.
机译：研究问题：可读性方程式广泛用于计算读者将如何理解书面材料。这些方程式通常是针对非技术性材料开发的，即针对小学，初中和高中的教科书。这项研究检查了计算机可读性预测在多大程度上与高科技材料-选定的汽车工程师协会（SAE）和国际标准组织（ISO）有关驾驶员界面的推荐做法和标准—一致。文献综述：对可读性方程式的原始来源的回顾表明，在计算各种标点符号和文本元素时缺乏特定标准，从而导致可读性评分不一致。很少有关于可读性方程的可靠性的研究发现此问题，甚至很少有系统地研究该问题的程度及其发生的原因。研究问题：（1）最常用的方程式是否给出相同的可读性分数？ （2）每个可读性方程式的分数如何随可读性工具而变化？ （3）如果可读性工具之间存在差异，为什么会出现它们？ （4）分数随着考试时间的长短而变化？方法：使用五种方法（四个在线可读性工具和用于Windows的Microsoft Word 2013）。此外，还使用简短的文本测试来了解不同的可读性工具如何计算文本元素，例如单词和句子。结果和结论：从这12篇SAE和ISO推荐的实践和标准中获得的段落的平均可读性得分范围从10年级阅读水平到大约15级。在各个网站上计算出的平均年级阅读水平是：Flesch-Kincaid 12.8，Gunning Fog 15.1 SMOG 12.6，Coleman-Liau 13.7和自动可读性指数12.3。随着篇幅的增加，可读性得分的估算变得更加一致，超过900个单词没有明显改善。在这五个可读性工具中，分数通常相差两个年级，但分数应该相同。这些差异是由于如何计算复合和带连字符的单词，斜杠，数字，缩写词和首字母缩写词以及URL以及其他标点和文本元素。出现这些差异是因为这些等式的来源通常没有指定如何对各种标点符号和文本元素进行评分。在所检查的工具中，如果需要Flesch-Kincaid等级级别，则作者建议使用Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号