Advertisement

Measurement of reading speed with standardized texts: a comparison of single sentences and paragraphs

  • Elke Karin AltpeterEmail author
  • Tobias Marx
  • Nhung Xuan Nguyen
  • Aline Naumann
  • Susanne Trauzettel-Klosinski
Miscellaneous

Abstract

Purpose

We examined the influence of text length (single sentence versus a paragraph of several sentences) on the repeatability of reading speed measurements in normal-sighted subjects.

Methods

We compared reading speeds for the German versions of the Radner charts (single sentences of 14 words each) and the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) charts (paragraphs, on average 132 words) in 30 normal-sighted elderly subjects aged 51–81 years (mean 64.5 years ± 7.2 SD). Three texts each of both lengths were read aloud in random order. The influence of text length (single sentence or paragraph) and text sample (each single text) on reading speed was calculated by a regression model and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

Mean reading speed (words per minute) showed no significant difference for single sentences (170 wpm ± 33 SD) and paragraphs (167 wpm ±31 SD). Differences in reading speeds within one type of reading material were higher between single sentences than between paragraphs. Correlation coefficients between speeds were higher for paragraphs (r = 0.96-0.98) than for single sentences (r = 0.69-0.78). Variations between reading speeds for three texts of each length were markedly lower for paragraphs than for single sentences: (median, interquartile range [IQR]): 6.7, IQR 13.9; 3.0, IQR 8.3; −2.0, IQR 9.7 versus −8.8, IQR 29.6; 15.6, IQR 29.4; 22.7, IQR 19.4, respectively.

Conclusions

Since reading speeds assessed with paragraphs show lower variance among texts than those for single sentences, they are better suited for repeated measurements, especially for long-term monitoring of the course of reading performance and for assessing effects of interventions in subjects with reading disorders.

Keywords

IReST chart Radner chart Reading speed Standardized reading charts 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Manfred MacKeben, PhD, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, for helpful comments on the revision of the manuscript.

This study is part of the doctoral thesis by author Tobias Marx in German language (Vergleich zweier deutschsprachiger, standardisierter Lesetafeln zur Bestimmung der Lesegeschwindigkeit. Inaugural-Dissertation, Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Tübingen).

Conflict of interest

The authors Elke K. Altpeter, Tobias Marx, Nhung X. Nguyen, and Aline Naumann certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Susanne Trauzettel-Klosinski: The copyright for the International Reading Speed Texts (“IReST” © 2012) is owned by the University of Tuebingen, Germany. Part of the royalties go to the Vision Rehabilitation Research Unit at the Center of Ophthalmology, University of Tuebingen. She has no personal financial interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hahn GA, Penka D, Gehrlich C et al (2006) New standardised texts for assessing reading performance in four European languages. Br J Ophthalmol 90:480–484PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Dietz K (2012) Standardized assessment of reading performance: the New International Reading Speed Texts IReST. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(9):5452–5461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Legge GE, Ross JA, Luebker A, LaMay JM (1989) Psychophysics of reading. VIII. The Minnesota low-vision reading test. Optom Vis Sci Off Publ Am Acad Optom 66(12):843–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Radner W, Willinger U, Obermayer W, Mudrich C, Velikay-Parel M, Eisenwort B (1998) A new reading chart for simultaneous determination of reading vision and reading speed. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk 213(3):174–781Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Radner W, Obermayer W, Richter-Mueksch S, Willinger U, Velikay-Parel M, Eisenwort B (2002) The validity and reliability of short German sentences for measuring reading speed. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240(6):461–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stifter E, König F, Lang T et al (2004) Reliability of a standardized reading chart system: variance component analysis, test-retest and inter-chart reliability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242(1):31–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin G (2013) Measuring reading performance. Vis Res 90:43–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibson E (1998) Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1):1–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibson E (2000) The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: Miyashita Y, Marantz A, O’Neil W (eds) Image, language, brain. MIT Pres, Cambridge, pp 95–126Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeMarco L, Massof R (1997) Distributions of print sizes in U.S. newspapers. J Vis Impair Blind 91:9–51Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein H (2011) Multilevel statistical models, 4th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bland MJ, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dürrwächter U, Sokolov AN, Reinhard J, Klosinski G, Trauzettel-Klosinski S (2010) Word length and word frequency affect eye movements in dyslexic children reading in a regular (German) orthography. Ann Dyslexia 60:86–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tressoldi PE, Stella G, Faggella M (2001) The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: a longitudinal study. J Learn Disabil 34(5):414–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hand CJ, Miellet S, O’Donnell PJ, Sereno SC (2010) Word frequency and contextual predictability effects in reading: it depends where you’re coming from. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36(5):1294–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Radach R, Inhoff A, Heller D (2004) Orthographic regularity gradually modulates saccade amplitudes in reading. Eur J Cogn Psychol 16(1–2):27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacKeben M, Nair U, Walker L, Fletcher DC (2015) Random word recognition chart helps scotoma assessment in low vision. Optometry Vis Sci 92(4):421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramulu PY, Swenor BK, Jefferys JL, Rubin GS (2013) Description and validation of a test to evaluate sustained silent reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(1):673–680PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Radner W, Diendorfer G (2014) English sentence optotypes for measuring reading acuity and speed–the English version of the Radner Reading Charts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252(8):1297–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elke Karin Altpeter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tobias Marx
    • 2
  • Nhung Xuan Nguyen
    • 1
  • Aline Naumann
    • 3
  • Susanne Trauzettel-Klosinski
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Ophthalmology, Low Vision ClinicUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Ophthalmology, Vision Rehabilitation Research UnitUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied BiometryUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations