I. Listenability and readability

Harwood, Kenneth

doi:10.1080/03637755509375133

Cited by 19 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early research suggests that “readability” measures, such as Fog and the Fleisch–Kinkaid index, also capture “listenability” (Allen [], Harwood [], Fang []). Notably, Harwood [] concludes that more “difficult” text was easier to comprehend when read than when heard.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Complexity in Firm Disclosures: Obfuscation or Information?

Bushee

Gow

Taylor

2017

J of Accounting Research

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research generally interprets complex language in firms' disclosures as indicative of managerial obfuscation. However, complex language can also reflect the provision of complex information; for example, informative technical disclosure. As a consequence, linguistic complexity commingles two latent components-obfuscation and information-that are related to information asymmetry in opposite directions. We develop a novel empirical approach to estimate these two latent components within the context of quarterly earnings conference calls. We validate our estimates of these two latent components by examining their relation to information asymmetry. Consistent with our predictions, we find that our estimate of the information component is negatively associated with information asymmetry while our estimate of the obfuscation component is positively associated with information asymmetry. Our findings suggest that future research on linguistic complexity can construct more powerful tests by separately examining these two latent components of linguistic complexity. JEL codes: D82; G14; G18; M41; M45

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Complexity in Firm Disclosures: Obfuscation or Information?

Bushee

Gow

Taylor

2017

J of Accounting Research

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Harwood (22) in an experiment involving graduate students reported that readability might be used as a gross predictor of listenability for a prose passage, but in another study (21) he concluded that a passage predicted to be difficult or fairly difficult was significantly more comprehensible through listening than through reading. Goodman-Maiamuth (20) found evidence that with tenth-grade students the Flesch formula for readability did not predict listenability at the two most difficult levels.…”

Section: Readability and Listenabilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Chapter II: Listening

Lewis¹

1958

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

LISTENING-the process of hearing, identifying, understanding, and interpreting spoken language-continued to receive considerable attention from researchers in the fields of speech, psychology, sociology, and linguistics. This chapter is limited to those studies clearly indicating an inquiry into the nature of the listening process and the application of techniques in listening instruction. The studies in appreciative listening to nonlanguage sounds are excluded as are those pieces of research dealing with the vast area of mass communication. The latter have a separate chapter in this issue. Whether we should use the term listening or the term auding is a matter for debate. An excellent case for the use of auding was made in the April 1955 issue of the REVIEW (7), but the matter has not been settled; popular usage is that of listening. The present writer does not wish to enter the discussion and will use the term listening submitted to him by the committee for this issue.

show abstract

“…Given that the question of how comprehension varies when listening or reading has been examined for decades (Harwood, 1955; Horowitz & Samuels, 1985; Hron et al, 1985; Lehmann & Seufert, 2020; Williams, 1974), it is understandable there have been previous reviews of existing research. One such review published in the 1960s synthesized studies examining the overlap between reading and listening skills as well as comparing comprehension by modality (Duker, 1965).…”

Section: Previous Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening Ears or Reading Eyes: A Meta-Analysis of Reading and Listening Comprehension Comparisons

Clinton

2021

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, a meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons across age groups was conducted. Based on robust variance estimation (46 studies; N = 4,687), the overall difference between reading and listening comprehension was not reliably different (g = 0.07, p = .23). Reading was beneficial over listening when the reading condition was self-paced (g = 0.13, p = .049) rather than experimenter-paced (g = −0.32, p = .16). Reading also had a benefit when inferential and general comprehension rather than literal comprehension was assessed (g = 0.36, p = .02; g = .15, p = .05; g = −0.01, p = .93, respectively). There was some indication that reading and listening were more similar in languages with transparent orthographies than opaque orthographies (g = 0.001, p = .99; g = 0.10, p = .19, respectively). The findings may be used to inform theories of comprehension about modality influences in that both lower-level skill and affordances vary comparisons of reading and listening comprehension. Moreover, the findings may guide choices of modality; however, both audio and written options are needed for accessible instruction.

show abstract

I. Listenability and readability

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

Linguistic Complexity in Firm Disclosures: Obfuscation or Information?

Linguistic Complexity in Firm Disclosures: Obfuscation or Information?

Chapter II: Listening

Listening Ears or Reading Eyes: A Meta-Analysis of Reading and Listening Comprehension Comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About