Cited by 570Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningText Readability and Simplification

Linguistic Features of Writing Quality

McNamara, Danielle S., Crossley, Scott A., McCarthy, Philip M.·2010·Written Communication

Abstract

In this study, a corpus of expert-graded essays, based on a standardized scoring rubric, is computationally evaluated so as to distinguish the differences between those essays that were rated as high and those rated as low. The automated tool, Coh-Metrix, is used to examine the degree to which high- and low-proficiency essays can be predicted by linguistic indices of cohesion (i.e., coreference and connectives), syntactic complexity (e.g., number of words before the main verb, sentence structure overlap), the diversity of words used by the writer, and characteristics of words (e.g., frequency, concreteness, imagability). The three most predictive indices of essay quality in this study were syntactic complexity (as measured by number of words before the main verb), lexical diversity (as measured by the Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity), and word frequency (as measured by Celex, logarithm for all words). Using 26 validated indices of cohesion from Coh-Metrix, none showed differences between high- and low-proficiency essays and no indices of cohesion correlated with essay ratings. These results indicate that the textual features that characterize good student writing are not aligned with those features that facilitate reading comprehension. Rather, essays judged to be of higher quality were more likely to contain linguistic features associated with text difficulty and sophisticated language.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0741088309351547

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • MTLD is a well-established measure of lexical diversity that is less sensitive to text length differences than TTR.

    “We identify vocabulary richness by using a well-established measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD)46 which is often used in the field of automated essay grading25,45,47. It takes into account the number of unique words but unlike the best-known measure of lexical diversity, the type-token ratio (TTR), it is not as sensitive to the difference in the length of the texts.”
  • Lexical, syntactic and discourse complexities correlate with essay gradings in prior work.

    “Weiss et al.25 observe the correlation between measures of lexical, syntactic and discourse complexities to the essay gradings of German high-school examinations while McNamara et al.45 explore cohesion (indicated, among other things, by connectives), syntactic complexity and lexical diversity in relation to the essay scoring.”
  • McNamara et al. found no indication that the use of cohesion indices such as discourse connectives correlates with high- and low-proficiency essays.

    “McNamara et al.45 also find no indication that the use of cohesion indices such as discourse connectives correlates with high- and low-proficiency essays.”

    From A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays (2023) · cites this paper as McNamara et al.45

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 59 · Cited by 570

Authors
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • Mississippi State University (US)
Corresponding author
McNamara, Danielle S.
Venue
Written Communication
Published
2009-11-24
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
57-86
ISSN
  • 0741-0883 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8472
OpenAlex
W2001833328
Cited by
570
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
FWCI
296.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Written Communication (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Mississippi State University
  • University of Memphis
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
Keywords
writing quality, essay scoring, Coh-Metrix, cohesion, coreference, connectives, syntactic complexity, lexical diversity, word frequency, concreteness, text complexity, reading comprehension, student 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