Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods
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.>
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The perspectives of multiple peers may be especially beneficial to students' conceptions of how their text is perceived by a target audience.
“For example, the perspectives of multiple peers may be especially beneficial to students ' conceptions of how their text is perceived by a target audience (e.g., Schriver 1989).”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Schriver 1989
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers
Sommers, N. (1980) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.2307/356588 · Cited by 749 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Revisiting readability: a unified framework for predicting text quality
Pitler, E., & Nenkova, A. (2008) · Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - EMNLP '08 · doi:10.3115/1613715.1613742 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021950 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schriver, K. A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schriver, K.A.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
- Published
- 1989
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 238-255
- ISSN
- 0361-1434 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2098613353
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- text quality evaluation, expert opinion, reading comprehension, textual revision, cognitive processes in reading, professional writing
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
