skip to main content
10.1145/1026533.1026539acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Automatic evaluation of aspects of document quality

Published:10 October 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

Coh-Metrix is a web-based application currently in development that automatically evaluates text. It uses two central concepts from discourse processing: text-based cohesion and situation-model based coherence. Cohesion is the degree to which components of the text are linked. Coherence is the representation of the world that the text conveys. Our intention is for Coh-Metrix to eventually map the cohesion of a text to the background knowledge and reading skills of the reader. Coh-Metrix will then be able to give feedback to a writer about which aspects of the text are cohesive and which lack cohesion. This will enable the writer to determine which aspects of the text need to be improved. Applications of Coh-Metrix on document quality as well as other future directions for the development of Coh-Metrix are discussed.

References

  1. Axelrod, R. B., & Cooper, C. R. (2001). The St Martins Guide to Writing. Bedford/St Martins: Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C., Chodorow, M., Braden-Harder, L., & Harris, M. D. (1998). Automated Scoring Using A Hybrid Feature Identification Technique. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, August 1998. Montreal, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Flower, L. (1993). Problem-Solving Strategies for Writers. (4th Ed). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285--307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Foltz, P. W., Laham, D., & Landauer, T. K. (1999). The Intelligent Essay Assessor: Applications to Educational Technology. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1(2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S.,& Louwerse, M.M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82--98). New York: Guilford Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. In press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Landauer, T., and S. Dumais. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211--240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Louwerse, M.M. (2002). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291--315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict readability and facilitate comprehension. Unpublished technical report: University of Memphis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from Text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247--287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Reid, S. (1997). The Prentice-Hall guide for college writers: a customized edition. Pearson Custom Publishing: Needham Heights, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Schreiner, M., Rehder, B., Landauer, T., & Laham, D. (1997). How latent semantic analysis (LSA) represents essay semantic content: Technical issues and analysis. In M. Shafto and P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp 1041). Mawhwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Stenner, A. J. (1998). Measuring reading comprehension with the lexile framework. 4th North American Conference on Adolescent/Adult Literacy: Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Automatic evaluation of aspects of document quality

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGDOC '04: Proceedings of the 22nd annual international conference on Design of communication: The engineering of quality documentation
      October 2004
      160 pages
      ISBN:1581138091
      DOI:10.1145/1026533

      Copyright © 2004 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 October 2004

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader