Entry Schriver:2000:RFN from jcd.bib

Last update: Tue Mar 5 02:04:11 MST 2019                Valid HTML 4.0!

Index sections

Top | Symbols | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

BibTeX entry

@Article{Schriver:2000:RFN,
  author =       "Karen A. Schriver",
  title =        "Readability Formulas in the New Millennium: What's the
                 Use?",
  journal =      j-JCD,
  volume =       "24",
  number =       "3",
  pages =        "138--140",
  month =        aug,
  year =         "2000",
  CODEN =        "AJCDBH",
  ISSN =         "1527-6805 (print), 1557-9441 (electronic)",
  ISSN-L =       "1527-6805",
  bibdate =      "Thu Feb 21 12:04:40 MST 2002",
  bibsource =    "http://portal.acm.org/;
                 http://web.mit.edu/tps/www/NL/SIGDOC_WWW/jcdtoc/sigtoc.html;
                 http://www.acm.org/pubs/toc/;
                 http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/jcd.bib",
  URL =          "http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/journals/jcd/2000-24-3/p138-schriver/",
  abstract =     "In this third of four commentaries on Klare's reprint,
                 Karen Schriver contents that while readability formulas
                 were intended as a quick benchmark for indexing
                 readability, they are inherently unreliable: they
                 depend on criterion (calibration) passages too short to
                 reflect cohesiveness, too varied to support
                 between-formula comparisons, and too text-oriented to
                 account for the effects of lists, enumerated sequences,
                 and tables on text comprehension. But readability
                 formulas did spark decades of research on what
                 comprehension really involves.",
  acknowledgement = ack-nhfb,
  annote =       "commentary",
  keywords =     "criterion passages; reliability; validity",
}

Related entries