Abstract

The author identifies some of the persistent questions raised by people in education, business, and government who want to judge how well their texts are working. She compares the cognitive processes involved in reading to comprehend text with those involved in reading to evaluate and revise text, stressing that even experienced writers often need help in detecting and diagnosing text problems. She characterizes three general classes of tests for evaluating text quality: (1) text-focused, (2) expert-judgment-focused, and (3) reader-focused approaches. She reviews typical methods within each class, examining the strengths and limitations of particular tests, and discusses the relative advantages of reader-focused methods over other approaches.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
1989-01-01
DOI
10.1109/47.44536
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (8)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Show all 8 →
  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Also cites 45 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.21236/ADA006655
    Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel  
  2. 10.2307/747086
  3. 10.1016/B978-0-12-223260-2.50011-6
  4. 10.2307/747021
  5. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1968.tb00625.x
  6. 10.1207/s15516709cog0602_2
  7. 10.1037/h0061470
  8. 10.1037/h0040591
  9. 10.1002/pfi.4150220515
  10. Cloze Procedure: A New Tool for Measuring Readability
    Journalism Quarterly  
  11. 10.3102/00028312018003259
  12. 10.2307/416228
  13. 10.1016/B978-0-12-566760-9.50017-8
  14. 10.1016/B978-0-12-223260-2.50017-7
  15. 10.1037/h0057532
  16. 10.1147/sj.213.0305
  17. 10.1109/TCOM.1982.1095380
  18. 10.1207/s15516709cog0103_3
  19. 10.1037/0003-066X.41.2.218.a
  20. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.12.1491
  21. 10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.635
  22. 10.2307/1310195
  23. 10.1177/002194366900600202
  24. 10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618
  25. 10.1080/01638537909544463
  26. 10.1145/67449.67492
  27. 10.1037/0022-0663.71.3.328
  28. 10.1145/67449.67472
  29. 10.1007/978-1-4684-1068-6_13
  30. 10.1075/idj.1.1.05wri
  31. 10.1177/001316447803800411
  32. 10.2307/249270
  33. 10.1002/asi.4630310406
  34. 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
  35. 10.1080/00140138808966673
  36. 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3
  37. 10.2307/357381
  38. 10.1145/67449.67503
  39. 10.1037//0022-0663.74.5.733
  40. 10.2307/356588
  41. 10.1145/2163.2164
  42. 10.1016/B978-0-12-223260-2.50019-0
  43. 10.1145/800049.801817
  44. 10.2307/376031
  45. 10.1145/317456.317476