The Cloze Procedure: A Convenient Readability Test for Training Materials and Translations

Klare, George R.; Sinaiko, H. Wallace; Stolurow, Lawrence M.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1972.tb00272.x

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first word in the passage was not considered for deletion since, having no preceding words, it tends to be relatively difficult to fill in by subjects. The reason for using two sets of deletions was to minimize the possibility of hitting a single unrepresentatively easy or difficult pattern {Klare, Sinaiko, and Stolurow, 1972). The same two sets of deleted words were used in both the solid and dash forms of a passage.…”

Section: Doze Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Inter-Relationships of Readability, Cloze and Multiple Choice Scores on a Reading Comprehension Test

Entin

Klare

1978

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Seven passages of a published reading comprehension test were administered to college students to compare the regular multiple chioce test scores with scores on two forms of a cloze test, standard blank and dash (dashed-line) blank, and with readability formula values. The mean on the dash form was significantly higher than on the standard form and subjects' scores on both were significantly related to their scores on the multiple choice test. Regression equations were derived to predict multiple choice scores from cloze scores. At the passage level, mean scores on (both) cloze forms correlated with readability values, but multiple choice means were correlated with neither. In a supplementary study college students answered the multiple choice questions without reading the passages, in order to determine prior knowledge on each passage. When the multiple choice scores were corrected for this, they correlated positively with scores on both forms of the cloze test and with readability values.The cloze procedure (Taylor, 1953) provides a convenient method of testing reading comprehension. The "test items" consist of blanks replacing every nth (usually every 5th) word in a passage, with subjects being asked to try to replace the missing words. Item generation is simple and objective compared to the same process for multiple choice tests. Consequently, cloze scores on sets of passages provide a useful criterion measure for the development of readability formulas, and have been used for that purpose by a number of recent investigators (

show abstract

Section: Doze Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Inter-Relationships of Readability, Cloze and Multiple Choice Scores on a Reading Comprehension Test

Entin

Klare

1978

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some investigators have commented on the reliability of the cloze procedure. Klare et al (1972) and Hartley et al (1975) found it to be reliable, but others have not found this to be the case. Davies (1973) showed how presenting a complete paragraph of text before starting the cloze procedure could lead to considerably increased scores.…”

Section: It Is Clear Frommentioning

confidence: 78%

Some Observations on Producing and Measuring Readable Writing

Hartley

Trueman

Burnhill

1980

Programmed Learning and Educational Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes (i) how we rewrote a piece of technical text to make it easier to understand, and (ii) how we attempted to measure our success at this task.The purpose of the paper is to chart the difficulties in which we found ourselves and to make the task easier for others who may wish to follow our path.There are numerous guidelines on how to produce readable writing, but, unfortunately, they are not consistent. Klare (unpublished), for example, reported wide areas of disagreement in the 156 suggestions that he found in 15 books (five of which were written for writers in general and ten for technical writers). (See Table 1.) Furthermore, most of the available guidelines do not take into account typographic design considerations. Exceptions here, of course, are the books by Hartley (1978,1980). The general procedures currently advocated by Hartley for redesigning text can be listed under three interrelated headings: Textual -Use the active voice. -Use simpler wording. -Either shorten sentences, or expand them into two or three simpler sentences. -Divide long paragraphs into short ones. -Number and list actions and procedures (and put them in temporal sequence). -When in difficulty think of how you would explain to a friend what you are trying to write. Write this down. Polish it. Typographical -Decide on the printed line length and typesize. Type the text with a matching number of characters per line. -Use units of line feed in proportion to separate out and to group units of text. (For example, separate headings from the text by using half a line space below the heading and one line space above it; separate paragraphs from each other by half a line space; start new sentences on a new line.) -Set the text unjustified (Le. with equal word spacing and ragged right-hand margin -as in normal typescript). -End each line at a sensible place syntactically (e.g. at the ends of clauses). Avoid word breaks (hyphenations) at line ends. -End each page at a sensible place (e.g. do not have the first line of a new paragraph as the last line of the page). -When printing use bold lower-case type (not capitals) for main headings. Procedural -Leave each revised draft for at least 12 hours. -Revise and simplify revised drafts. -Do not look back at the original text (except afterwards to check on ambiguities or points of meaning). -Ask colleagues to help simplify the revised draft (either by simplifying it themselves, or by pointing out where they might expect difficulties to occur). -Repeat as often as time allows.The procedural aspects of these guidelines arc only suggestions but they are particularly important. Problem words and phrases in one version seem to appear in two or three revisions before they finally disappear. There never seems to be a final solution.To see how these guidelines work in practice readers are now invited to compare Figures 1 and 2. These figures present the first page in its original and revised form from a document containing four pages of text. As noted above, the text in Figure 2 can still be ...

show abstract

“…Henry (1975), et même de livres entiers, cf. Klare, Sinaiko & Stolurow (1971), possède cependant une certaine validité qui vaut bien celle des formules de lisibilité. À la différence de ces dernières qui prédisent la lisibilité des textes en se basant sur un comptage simple, le test de closure la mesure en calculant la moyenne des résultats obtenus par un échantillon de lecteurs.…”

Section: Le Test De Closureunclassified

De la lisibilité linguistique à une lisibilité sémiotique

Sorin

2009

rql

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RÉSUMÉ Devant les limites de la lisibilité linguistique et de la compréhensibilité, nous proposons un nouveau concept de lisibilité, une lisibilité sémiotique dont l’objet est le texte narratif et sa capacité à se faire comprendre. Le concept de lisibilité sémiotique désigne le lieu d’intégration des parcours génératif et interprétatif. La lisibilité sémiotique est un processus textuel par lequel le récit se construit à travers ses niveaux de structures et génère des opérations prévues dans sa stratégie, guidant ainsi le lecteur vers l’interprétation globale. À l’aide de l’analyse sémiotique, l’application de notre modèle permet de juger qualitativement de la lisibilité d’un récit fictionnel à la lumière de la normalité.

show abstract

The Cloze Procedure: A Convenient Readability Test for Training Materials and Translations

Cited by 20 publications

References 62 publications

Some Inter-Relationships of Readability, Cloze and Multiple Choice Scores on a Reading Comprehension Test

Some Inter-Relationships of Readability, Cloze and Multiple Choice Scores on a Reading Comprehension Test

Some Observations on Producing and Measuring Readable Writing

De la lisibilité linguistique à une lisibilité sémiotique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About