The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting reading difficulty with statistical language models
Abstract
A potentially useful feature of information retrieval systems for students is the ability to identify documents that not only are relevant to the query but also match the student's reading level. Manually obtaining an estimate of reading difficulty for each document is not feasible for very large collections, so we require an automated technique. Traditional readability measures, such as the widely used Flesch‐Kincaid measure, are simple to apply but perform poorly on Web pages and other nontraditional documents. This work focuses on building a broadly applicable statistical model of text for different reading levels that works for a wide range of documents. To do this, we recast the well‐studied problem of readability in terms of text categorization and use straightforward techniques from statistical language modeling. We show that with a modified form of text categorization, it is possible to build generally applicable classifiers with relatively little training data. We apply this method to the problem of classifying Web pages according to their reading difficulty level and show that by using a mixture model to interpolate evidence of a word's frequency across grades, it is possible to build a classifier that achieves an average root mean squared error of between one and two grade levels for 9 of 12 grades. Such classifiers have very efficient implementations and can be applied in many different scenarios. The models can be varied to focus on smaller or larger grade ranges or easily retrained for a variety of tasks or populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection
Kohavi, R. (1995) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.19712698 · Cited by 10,909
A statistical model for scientific readability
Si, L., & Callan, J. (2001) · Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/502585.502695 · Cited by 197
Self-citation
Cited by
The Effects of Reporting Complexity on Small and Large Investor Trading
Miller, B. P. (2010) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.00000001 · Cited by 801
Benjamin, R. G. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins‐Thompson, K., & Callan, J.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1448-1462
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W1982643343
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting reading difficulty with statistical language models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.20243
- The paper
- Collins‐Thompson, K., & Callan, J. (2005). Predicting reading difficulty with statistical language models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20243
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.