The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension
Open accessAbstract
The proposed multilevel framework of discourse comprehension includes the surface code, the textbase, the situation model, the genre and rhetorical structure, and the pragmatic communication level. We describe these five levels when comprehension succeeds and also when there are communication misalignments and comprehension breakdowns. A computer tool has been developed, called Coh-Metrix, that scales discourse (oral or print) on dozens of measures associated with the first four discourse levels. The measurement of these levels with an automated tool helps researchers track and better understand multilevel discourse comprehension. Two sets of analyses illustrate the utility of Coh-Metrix in discourse theory and educational practice. First, Coh-Metrix was used to measure the cohesion of the text base and situation model, as well as potential extraneous variables, in a sample of published studies that manipulated text cohesion. This analysis helped us better understand what was precisely manipulated in these studies and the implications for discourse comprehension mechanisms. Second, Coh-Metrix analyses are reported for samples of narrative and science texts in order to advance the argument that traditional text difficulty measures are limited because they fail to accommodate most of the levels of the multilevel discourse comprehension framework.
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
Kilgarriff, A. (2000) · Language · doi:10.2307/417141 · Cited by 11,529
Bruner, J. (1986) · doi:10.4159/9780674029019 · Cited by 8,657
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
Marcus, M. (1993) · doi:10.21236/ada273556 · Cited by 7,405
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315836010 · Cited by 7,392
Actual Minds, Possible Worlds.
Mergler, N. L., Schleifer, R., & Bruner, J. S. (1986) · MLN · doi:10.2307/2905728 · Cited by 6,626
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.211 · Cited by 6,282
Strategies of Discourse Comprehension
Staczek, J. J., van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1985) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/326517 · Cited by 5,377
Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.5.363 · Cited by 5,298
Variation across Speech and Writing
Biber, D. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621024 · Cited by 5,227
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Baayen R. H., 1995, The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) {CD‐ROM}
- Charniak E., 2000, Proceedings of the First Conference on North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 132
- Gough P. B., 1972, Language by ear and by eye, 331
- Hempelmann C. F., 2005, Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meetings of the Cognitive Science Society, 941
- Hewitt P. G., 1998, Conceptual physics
- Koslin B. I., 1987, The DRP: An effective measure in reading
- McCarthy P. M., 2006, Proceedings of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society International Conference (FLAIRS), 764
- McClelland J. L., 1986, Parallel distributed processing, 122
- McNamara D. S., Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences
- McNamara D. S., 2008, Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension, The psychology of learning and motivation, 297
- Meyer B. J. F., 2007, Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, 347
- Pennebaker J. W., 2007, Linguistic inquiry and word count
- Prince E. F., 1981, Radical pragmatics, 223
- Rayner K., 1994, The psychology of reading
- VanderVeen A., 2007, Theories of text comprehension: The importance of reading strategies to theoretical foundations of reading comprehension, 137
- Williams P. J., 2007, Reading comprehension strategies: theories, interventions, and technologies, 199
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
(2021) · Research methods in applied linguistics · doi:10.1075/rmal · Cited by 2,782
Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511894664 · Cited by 932
Self-citationDelgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003 · Cited by 664
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x11413260 · Cited by 635
“The five levels are elaborated later and in Graesser and McNamara (2011).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationReading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Clinton‐Lisell, V. (2019) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12269 · Cited by 588
Metadata
- Authors
- Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Memphis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Graesser, Arthur C.
- Venue
- Topics in Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 371-398
- ISSN
- 1756-8757 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-8765
- OpenAlex
- W2087016971
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 115
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 3.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Topics in Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0904909, DRK12, 0918409, 0834847, 0325428)
- U.S. Department of Defense (H9C104-07-0014)
- Institute of Education Sciences (R305G020018, R305A080594, R305B070349, R305A080589, R305H050169)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Text Readability and Simplification
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- Coh-Metrix, textual cohesion, situation model, textbase, pragmatic communication, narrative texts, scientific texts
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Cognition, Humans, Linguistics, Reading, Semantics, User-Computer Interface, Comprehension
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
