The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the Relative Difficulty of the text: Implications for Instruction
Abstract
The relationship between the relative difficulty of passages and the number of unknown words in passages was investigated. In Study I, 219 students in Grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 were given 100-word passages sampled from textbooks and library books (trade books) and then asked to underline each word that they did not know. In Study II, 60 graduate students were given a similar task involving 120 passages at the following levels of difficulty: junior high, senior high, college, and graduate school. Relative difficulty (or relative easiness) was determined from the difference between a measure of the reading ability of the student in grade equivalent (GE) units and a measure of the difficulty level of the material in GE units. The results from both Study I and Study II can be summarized as follows: (a) when the material is relatively easy then close to 0% will be unknown basic words, (b) when the material is relatively hard, then 2% or more will be unknown basic words, and (c) when the difficulty of the material is matched closely to the ability of the reader, then around 1% will be unknown basic words. These findings do not support the theory that free reading results in large vocabulary growth because free reading is likely to involve relatively easy material that contains few, if any, unknown words. Indeed, these findings call into question the practice of devoting large amounts of classroom time to free reading if the purpose is to increase vocabulary or reading level.
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
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.2307/747758 · Cited by 1,249
Cited by
Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning
Schmitt, N. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089921 · Cited by 1,467
To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0021890 · Cited by 1,299
CARLO, M. S., AUGUST, D., MCLAUGHLIN, B., SNOW, C. E., DRESSLER, C., LIPPMAN, D. N., LIVELY, T. J., & WHITE, C. E. (2004) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.39.2.3 · Cited by 747
A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444812000018 · Cited by 507
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ams074 · Cited by 457
Metadata
- Authors
- Carver, R. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Reading Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1994-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 413-437
- ISSN
- 0022-4111 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139852702
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.66
- 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: Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the Relative Difficulty of the text: Implications for Instruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10862969409547861
- The paper
- Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the Relative Difficulty of the text: Implications for Instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969409547861
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.