Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an interview. In order to assess whether lay people apply argument scheme specific criteria when performing these tasks, five different argumentation schemes were included in this study: argumentation from authority, from example, from analogy, from cause to effect, and from consequences. Laypeople’s use of criteria for argument quality was inferred from interview protocols. The results revealed that participants combined general criteria from informal logic (such as relevance and acceptability) and scheme-specific criteria (such as expertise for argumentation from authority, similarity for argumentation from analogy, effectiveness for argumentation from consequences). The results supported the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical argument scheme rule in a strong sense and provided a more fine-grained view of central processing in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

This paper focuses on the interaction between teams of participants in the constructive interaction (CI) method. We analyzed transcripts and video recordings from five CI sessions in order to determine the types and frequencies of communicative acts performed as well as their usefulness to usability testers. In addition, we examined the contribution of the individual team members to the interaction and investigated whether the interaction took place according to a pattern of cooperation. Our analysis showed that team interaction in the CI test is highly task-oriented and hardly descriptive. For the most part, the five CI sessions contained communicative acts that are (potentially) useful to usability testers. The contribution of the team members to the interaction was largely similar in terms of types/frequencies of communicative acts, but the teams' cooperation pattern revealed that this equal contribution was no immediate guarantee for successful cooperation. To address this issue, we suggest several ways to improve the CI method.

What is the influence of demographic variables such as gender and educational level on the reader feedback collected under the plus-minus method? To answer this question, an analysis was made of the problems detected in four public information brochures. The average amount of feedback per participant did not vary among the four brochures, but the severity of the problems did. Male participants mentioned more problems than female participants, but the problems detected by female participants were on average more severe. Highly educated participants detected more problems than participants with a lower level of education. No differences in problem types mentioned were found between male and female participants, and only one difference was found between the two educational levels: Highly educated participants focused more strongly on the structuring of information. In general, brochure characteristics had more effect on the types of feedback collected than the two demographic participant characteristics.

The literature on formative text evaluation pays scant attention to the revision phase following data collection. This article describes a small-scale experiment in which five professional writers were asked to revise brochure fragments on the basis of feedback from readers. The feedback consisted of readers' comments, selected from the results of a pretest of the brochures, regarding their acceptance of the information and their appreciation of text elements. Despite the wide variety of solutions that resulted, some interesting tendencies were found: In response to problems with factual acceptance, writers often decided to add information; in response to problems with normative acceptance, they often chose to substitute material; and in response to appreciation problems, they either deleted the problematic passage or substituted a different phrase.

This article presents a review of the literature on reader-focused text evaluation. First, an account is given of the document characteristics that can be evaluated. Then the possible functions of evaluations are considered, a distinction being made between verifying, troubleshooting, and choice-supporting research. Finally, an overview is presented of methods appropriate for the various document characteristics and evaluation functions. Relevant research findings on the methodological strengths and constraints of each method are discussed.