McNamara&Graesser

McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (in press). In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing:
Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Coh-Metrix: An Automated Tool for Theoretical and Applied Natural Language Processing
Danielle S. McNamara and Art Graesser
Institute for Intelligent Systems
University of Memphis

Abstract
Coh-Metrix provides indices for the characteristics of texts on multiple levels of analysis, including word
characteristics, sentence characteristics, and the discourse relationships between ideas in text. Coh-Metrix
was developed to provide a wide range of indices within one tool. This chapter describes Coh-Metrix and
studies that have been conducted validating the Coh-Metrix indices. Coh-Metrix can be used to better
understand differences between texts and to explore the extent to which linguistic and discourse features
successfully distinguish between text types. Coh-Metrix can also be used to develop and improve natural
language processing approaches. We also describe the Coh-Metrix Text Easability Component Scores,
which provide a picture of text ease (and hence potential challenges). The Text Easability components
provided by Coh-Metrix go beyond traditional readability measures by providing metrics of text
characteristics on multiple levels of language and discourse.

McNamara&Graesser

Coh-Metrix: An Automated Tool for Theoretical and Applied Natural Language Processing
Coh-Metrix is an automated tool that provides linguistic indices for text and discourse (Graesser,
McNamara, Louwerse, & Cai, 2004). Coh-Metrix was developed to meet three practical needs. First, at
the time that the Coh-Metrix research project began in 2002, there were no readily available tools that
provided an array of indices on words or texts. For example, if a researcher needed the word frequency
values for words or sentences in a text, one tool might be available (though challenging to find). But
another tool would have to be used for measures of word concreteness, familiarity, imagery, syntactic
complexity, and so on. In other words, there existed no linguistic workbench capable of providing a wide
array of measures on language and discourse. Second, traditional measures of text difficulty, referred to as
readability, were outdated given the maturation of our understanding of text and discourse (Clark, 1996;
Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003; Kintsch, 1998). There was a growing recognition of a number
of factors contributing to text difficulty that are not considered within traditional measures of text
readability. Third, there existed no automated measures of text cohesion. Whereas recognition of the
importance of cohesion had flourished in the 80s and 90s (Gernsbacher, 1990; Goldman, Graesser, & Van
den Broek, 1999; Louwerse, 2001; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996; Sanders & Noordman, 2000), there were
no objective, implemented measures of cohesion available. Thus, with the overarching goal of providing
more informative measures of text complexity, particularly considering text cohesion, we embarked in
2002 on a mission to develop Coh-Metrix (initially funded by an Institute of Education Sciences). This
chapter describes some motivating factors that led to Coh-Metrix, an overview of the measures provided
by Coh-Metrix, some of the many NLP studies that have been completed over the last eight years, and the
ultimate outcome of our endeavors: Coh-Metrix Text Complexity Components.
Readability vs. Cohesion: Why Coh-Metrix was Developed
Readability measures are the most common approach to estimating the difficulty of a text and
hundreds have been developed over the past century. Readability formulas became popular in the 1950s

McNamara&Graesser

and by the 1980s over 200 readability algorithms had been developed, with over a 1000 supporting
studies (Chall & Dale, 1995; Dubay, 2004). The most well known readability measures include FleschKincaid Grade Level (Klare, 1974-5), Degrees of Reading Power (DRP; Koslin, Zeno, & Koslin, 1987),
and Lexile scores (Stenner, 2006). Measures of readability are highly correlated because they are based
on the same constructs: the difficulty of the individual words and the complexity of the separate sentences
in the text. However, the way in which these constructs are operationalized and the underlying statistical
assumptions vary somewhat across readability measures. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level metric is based
on the length of words (i.e., number of letters or syllables) and length of sentences (i.e., number of
words). DRP and Lexile scores relate these characteristics of the texts to readers performance on cloze
tasks. In a cloze task, the reader reads a text with some words left blank; the reader is asked to fill in the
words by generating them or by selecting a word from a set of options (usually the latter). Using this
methodology, the appropriateness of a text for a particular reader can be calculated based on the
characteristics of the texts and the readers performance on cloze tasks. A particular text would be
predicated to be at the readers level of proficiency if the reader can perform the cloze task at a threshold
of performance (75%) for texts with similar characteristics (i.e., with the same word and sentence level
difficulties). A text can be defined as too easy if performance is higher than 75% and too difficult to the
extent it is lower than 75%.
Readability measures based on word and sentence characteristics (i.e., usually length) have validity
as indices of text difficulty. When words contain more letters or syllables, they tend to be less frequently
used in a language. Readers need to have greater exposure to language and text in order to encounter less
frequent words and to know what they mean. Clearly, a requisite to comprehension is knowing the meaning
of the words in a text. In turn, to the extent that a sentence contains more words, there is a greater likelihood
that the sentence is more complex syntactically. Readers who have had less exposure to language and text
(i.e., younger and less skilled readers) face greater challenges in parsing syntactically complex sentences.

McNamara&Graesser

In sum, word and sentence factors go a long way in accounting for sources of text difficulty.
However, these factors alone explain only a part of text comprehension, and ignore many language and
discourse features that are theoretically influential at estimating comprehension difficulty. At the heart of
Coh-Metrix is the assumption that cohesion is one of the most important aspects of language that is ignored
by readability measures. Cohesion is the linguistic glue that holds together the events and concepts
conveyed within a text. Beyond the words and separate sentences in the text, are the relationships between
the sentences and larger units of text. Explicit cues in the text help the reader to process, understand, or infer
those relationships. A simple but powerful source of cohesion is referential and semantic overlap of adjacent
sentences, pairs of sentences in a paragraph, and adjacent paragraphs. Simply put, when words, concepts, or
ideas overlap between sentences, that content forms a link between the sentences. Another source of
cohesion is connecting words (or connectives) such as because and however. Connectives tell the reader that
there is a relationship between two ideas, and help the reader to understand the direction of the relationship.
Cohesive cues help the reader to understand connections among sentences and paragraphs. This, in
turn, facilitates understanding of the words and sentences, and enhances the reader global understanding of
the text. Many studies, across a variety of paradigms and dependent measures, have shown that cohesive
cues in text facilitate reading comprehension and help readers construct more coherent mental
representations of text content (Britton & Gulgoz, 1991; McNamara, 2001; Zwaan & Radvanksy, 1998). For
this reason, the primary bank of indices provided by Coh-Metrix assesses the cohesion of the text.
Coh-Metrix Measures of Language and Cohesion
The number and particular measures that are provided by Coh-Metrix depends on the version and
the type of tool. We have developed public versions of the tool that analyze individual texts and have
provided between 40 and 80 validated indices. We have also developed internal versions of Coh-Metrix
that analyze texts in batches and that include 600-1000 indices, many of which are redundant and many of

McNamara&Graesser

which have not been validated (and thus we dont release them to the public). Although the specific CohMetrix measures vary somewhat across versions and tools, the banks of measures are quite similar.
Descriptive. Coh-Metrix provides descriptive indices such as the number and length of words,
sentences, and paragraphs. These indices help the user to check the Coh-Metrix output (e.g., to make sure
that the numbers make sense) and also to interpret patterns of data.
Co-Referential Cohesion. Co-referential cohesion refers to overlap in content words between
local sentences. For example, this sentence overlaps with the previous sentence by means of the singular
form of the word sentence. The sentences below provide another example from Chapter 2 of the novel,
Jane Eyre:
"I resisted all the way: a new thing for me." Jane says this as Bessieis taking her to be locked in
the red-room after she had fought back when John Reed struck her. For the first time Jane is
asserting her rights, and this action leads to her eventually being sent to Lowood School.

In this excerpt, the explicit referential cohesion is provided only by the overlap in the subject, Jane. While
there is some semantic overlap, much of this must be inferred by the reader.
Coh-Metrix indices of co-referential cohesion vary along two dimensions. First, the indices vary
in terms of locality, from local to more global indices. Local indices include overlap between consecutive,
adjacent sentences. Indices become increasingly global to the extent that they consider overlap among 2,
3, 4, or all of the sentences in a paragraph or text. Second, the indices vary in terms of the explicitness of
the overlap. Noun overlap measures the proportion of sentences in a text for which there are overlapping
nouns. Argument overlap relaxes the noun constraint by also considering nouns that have the same stems
(e.g., baby, babies; mouse, mice) and also considers overlap between pronouns. It should be noted,
however, that Coh-Metrix does not attempt to determine the referents of pronouns (e.g., they refers to
Sally and John). Stem overlap includes overlap between nouns in one sentence with words that share a
common stem in another, including nouns as well as other types of content words (i.e., verbs, adjectives,

McNamara&Graesser

adverbs). Whereas the latter three indices are binary (i.e., there either is or is not any overlap between a
pair of sentences), content word overlap refers to the proportion of content words that are shared between
sentences.
Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA; Landauer, McNamara, Dennis, & Kintsch, 2007; also see
Kintsch & Kintsch, this volume) provides measures of semantic overlap between sentences or between
paragraphs. LSA considers meaning overlap between explicit words and also words that are implicitly
similar or related in meaning. For example, home in one sentence will have a relatively high degree of
semantic overlap with house and table in another sentence. LSA uses a statistical technique called
singular value decomposition to condense a large corpus of texts to 100-500 statistical dimensions. The
conceptual similarity between any two text excerpts (e.g., word, clause, sentence, text) is computed as the
geometric cosine between the values and weighted dimensions of the two text excerpts. The value of the
cosine typically varies from 0 to 1. Coh-Metrix measures LSA-based cohesion in several ways, such as
LSA similarity between adjacent sentences, LSA similarity between all possible pairs of sentences in a
paragraph, and LSA similarity between adjacent paragraphs.
Situation Model. Referential cohesion is one linguistic feature that can influence a readers
deeper understanding of text. However, there are deeper levels of meaning that go beyond the words. The
expression situation model has been used by researchers in discourse processing and cognitive science to
refer to the deeper meaning representations that involve much more than the explicit words (van Dijk &
Kintsch, 1983; Graesser & McNamara, in press; Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998;
Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). For example, with episodes in narrative text, the situation model would
include the plot; and, in an informational text about the circulatory system, the situation model might
include the flow of the blood. The situation model comprises a mental representation of the deeper
meaning of the text (Kintsch, 1998). And, some researchers have described the situational model in terms
of the features that are present in the comprehenders mental representation when a given context is
activated (e.g., Singer & Leon, 2007).

McNamara&Graesser

The content words and connective words systematically constrain and are aligned with aspects of
these inferred meaning representations, but the explicit words do not go the full distance in specifying the
deep meanings. Coh-Metrix provides indices for a number of measures that are potentially related the
readers situation model understanding. These include measures of causality, such as incidence scores for
causal verbs, intentional verbs, and causal particles (e.g., connectives like because, in order to), and ratios
of causal particles to causal verbs. There are measures of verb overlap. These indices are indicative of the
extent to which verbs (which have salient links to actions, events, and states) are repeated across the text.
There are measures of temporal cohesion and logical cohesion as well. These and other measures are
reflective of elements of a text that are more or less likely to support a readers construction of a coherent
situation model.
Lexical Diversity. Lexical diversity refers to the variety of words (types) that occur in a text in
relation to the number of words (tokens). When the number of word types is equal to the total number of
words (tokens), then all of the words are different. In that case, lexical diversity is at a maximum, and the
text is either very low in cohesion or very short. Lexical diversity is lower (and cohesion is higher) when
more words are used multiple times across the text. Coh-Metrix includes three indices of lexical diversity:
type-token ratio (TTR), vocd, and the Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD). TTR is simply the
number of unique words divided by the number of tokens of the words. The index produced by vocd is
calculated through a computational procedure that fits TTR random samples with ideal TTR curves.
MTLD is calculated as the mean length of sequential word strings in a text that maintain a given TTR
value. TTR is correlated with text length because as the number of word tokens increases, there is a lower
likelihood of those words being unique. Measures such as vocd and MTLD overcome that confound by
using sampling methods (McCarthy & Jarvis, 2010).
Connectives. Coh-Metrix provides an incidence score (occurrence per 1000 words) for all
connectives as well as different types of connectives. Indices are provided on five general types of
connectives: causal (because, so), additive (and, moreover), temporal (first, until), logical (and, or), and

McNamara&Graesser

adversative/contrastive (although, whereas). In addition, there is a distinction between positive

connectives (also, moreover) and negative connectives (however, but).
Words and Sentences. Coh-Metrix also assesses text difficulty at the word and sentence level,
but in comparison to readability measures, does so in ways that are driven by theories of reading
comprehension. For example, in addition to word frequency, Coh-Metrix assesses the degree to which the
text contains abstract versus concrete words. When a text contains more abstract ideas, it is more difficult
to process. Coh-Metrix assesses words on abstractness, parts of speech, familiarity, multiple senses of a
word, age of acquisition, and many other features. At the sentence level, Coh-Metrix directly analyzes
syntactic complexity, such as the number of modifiers in noun-phrases and the number of words before
the main verb in a sentence.
Applied Natural Language Processing Studies using Coh-Metrix
Well over 70 studies have been conducted in our laboratory using Coh-Metrix, and the number
grows steadily each year. Indeed, there are nine studies reported in this volume that have made use of
Coh-Metrix tools (Adam, McCarthy, Boonthum, & McNamara, this volume; Baba & Nitta, this volume;
Bell, McCarthy, & McNamara, this volume; Crossley & McNamara, this volume; Jackson & McNamara,
this volume; McCarthy, Dufty, Hempelman, Cai, McNamara & Graesser, this volume; McCarthy &
McNamara, this volume; McNamara et al., this volume; Weston, Crossley, & McNamara, this volume).
In addition, a growing number of researchers are using Coh-Metrix to investigate differences among texts,
to develop stimuli, and to describe characteristics of texts. In sum, it is a very useful tool, particularly in
the context of ANLP.
In our laboratory, Coh-Metrix is often used to understand the features of texts that are used in the
context of experimental studies of text comprehension. For example, Ozuru, Dempsey, and McNamara
(2009) and Ozuru, Briner, Best, and McNamara (in press) used Coh-Metrix indices to guide cohesion
modifications to high and low cohesion texts and to validate their overall cohesiveness. Coh-Metrix has

McNamara&Graesser

also been used in the context of three main types of corpus studies. These include validation studies,
exploratory studies, and natural language studies. In this section of the chapter, we provide a few
examples of each type of study.
Validation Studies. One important part of the Coh-Metrix project is the validation of the indices.
It is necessary to verify that the indices measure what we think they are measuring and that they are
theoretically compatible with patterns of data corresponding to types of texts or human performance. We
have conducted many studies of this nature. One example of a validation study in this volume is
McCarthy, Dufty, Hempelman, Cai, McNamara, and Graesser who examined the validity of our LSA
Given/New measure.
Another example of a validation study is McNamara, Louwerse, McCarthy, and Graesser (2010).
This study investigated the validity of Coh-Metrix as a measure of cohesion differences in text. We
reviewed studies that had empirically investigated text cohesion. We collected 19 pairs of high and low
cohesion texts from 12 of these studies. The results of this study indicated that commonly used readability
indices (e.g., Flesch-Kincaid) inappropriately distinguished between low and high cohesion texts.
Specifically, according to readability estimates, the low cohesion texts should have been easier to read
and understand than the high cohesion texts, which is not the case. Using Coh-Metrix, we confirmed that
the co-reference indices provided by Coh-Metrix revealed significant differences between the high and
low cohesion texts, showing higher cohesion scores for the high-cohesion texts than the low-cohesion
texts. We also used discriminant analysis to examine which of the indices provided a greater distinction
between the high and low cohesion texts. These analyses indicated that a combination of two indices,
noun co-reference and causal cohesion, best discriminated between high and low cohesion texts. Notably,
the researchers who had modified the texts had done so with co-reference and causal cohesion in mind;
thus, it not surprising that these measures rose to the surface. Nonetheless, given the empirical results of
the studies indicating that these cohesion modifications do indeed affect comprehension, the results of this
corpus study provide additional evidence that referential and causal relationships play important roles in

McNamara&Graesser

10

the difficulty of texts. And, at a practical level, this study validated the ability of Coh-Metrix indices to
provide measures of text cohesion.
A third example of a validation study comes from Duran, McCarthy, Graesser, and McNamara
(2007). This study validated temporal cohesion measures using a corpus of high school texts from the
domains of science, history, and narrative. Assessing temporality in text is important because of its
ubiquitous presence in organizing language and discourse. Indeed, situation model theories of text
comprehension consider temporality to be one of the critical dimensions for building a coherent mental
representation of described events, particularly in narrative texts (Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998).
Temporality is partially represented through inflected tense morphemes (e.g., -ed, is, has) in every
sentence of the English language. The temporal dimension also depicts unique internal event timeframes,
such as an event that is complete or ongoing, by incorporating a diverse tense-aspect system (ter Meulen,
1995). The occurrence of events at a point in time can also be established by a large repertoire of
adverbial cues, such as before, after, then (Klein, 1994). These temporal features provide several different
indices of the temporal cohesion of a text.
To validate Coh-Metrix measures of temporality in Duran et al. (2007), experts in discourse
processing rated the 150 texts in terms of temporal coherence on three continuous scale measures
designed to capture unique representations of time. These evaluations established a gold standard of
temporality. A multiple regression analysis using Coh-Metrix temporal indices significantly predicted
human ratings. The predictors included in the model were a subset of five temporal cohesion features
generated by Coh-Metrix: incidence of temporal expression words, incidence of positive temporal
connectives, incidence of past tense, incidence of present tense, and temporal adverbial phrases.
Collectively, all but one of the predictors (i.e., the incidence of positive connectives) significantly
predicted the expert ratings. The indices accounted for 40 to 64 percent of the variance in the experts
ratings (depending on the type of rating). The study thus demonstrated that the Coh-Metrix indices of
local, temporal cohesion significantly predicted human interpretations of temporal coherence. A

McNamara&Graesser

11

discriminant analysis further indicated that these indices were highly predictive of text genres (i.e.,
science, history, and narrative), and were able to classify texts as belonging to a particular genre with very
good reliability (i.e., recall and precision ranged from .47 to .92, with an average F-measure of .68). This
study validated the temporal indices both in terms of human ratings of temporal cohesion and their ability
to distinguish between text types.
Exploratory Studies. Another type of study can be characterized as exploratory. One such study
appears in this volume (Bell, McCarthy, & McNamara, this volume). In this type of study, we and others
have examined how far linguistic features can go towards characterizing and identifying different types of
texts. To some extent, these studies serve as validation studies because they provide additional evidence
that certain text features play important roles in characterizing text and discourse. Indeed, the distinction
between these two types of studies may be hazy. One difference is that exploratory studies are not
focusing on validating any particular measures or indices, but instead serve to validate the general utility
of Coh-Metrix. In sum, they explore the extent to which linguistic and discourse features alone
successfully characterize essential differences between texts and among corpora.
We have conducted many exploratory studies. One such study was conducted by Hall, McCarthy,
Lewis, Lee, and McNamara (2007). In this study, Coh-Metrix indices were used to examine variations in
American and British English, specifically in texts regarding the topic of Law. Their corpus included

400 American and English/Welsh legal cases. The results suggested that there were substantial
differences between the two, casting doubt on generalizations about British and American writing. In
addition, a discriminant function analysis including five indices of cohesion (referential, causal,

syntactic, semantic, and lexical diversity) was able to correctly classify an impressive 85% of the
texts in the test set. Thus, cohesion was found to be an important and highly significant predictor
of differences between American and British English.

McNamara&Graesser

12

Another example of an exploratory study using Coh-Metrix was conducted by McCarthy, Renner,
Duncan, Duran, Lightman, and McNamara (2008). In this study, a combination of 12 Coh-Metrix indices
was used to form a measure of topic sentencehood. Four experiments were conducted to assess two
models of topic sentencehood identification: the Derived Model and the Free Model. According to the
Derived Model, topic sentences are identified in the context of the paragraph and in terms of how well
each sentence in the paragraph captures the paragraphs theme. In contrast, according to the Free Model,
topic sentences can be identified based on sentential features without reference to other sentences in the
paragraph (i.e., without context). The results of the experiments suggested that human raters were able to
identify topic sentences both with and without the context of the other sentences in the paragraph. The
authors also developed computational implementations for each of the theoretical models using CohMetrix indices. When computational versions were assessed, the results for the Free Model were
promising; however, the Derived Model results were poor. These results collectively implied that humans'
identification of topic sentences in context may rely more heavily on sentential features than on the
relationships between sentences in a paragraph. The authors overall conclusion was that there are (at
least) two types of topic sentences. One type is ideal and can be represented by the computational
implementation of the Free Model (i.e., out of context). These types of topic sentences are often used as
examples in textbooks and they are computationally identifiable with a high degree of accuracy. The other
type of topic sentence is more naturalistic. Without the context of surrounding text, these sentences are
more difficult and perhaps impossible to recognize as topic sentences.
Natural Language Studies. By far, most of the studies we have conducted in the context of the
Coh-Metrix project focus on natural language. These include studies examining a wide range of topics
and tasks such as deception, paraphrasing, explaining, answering questions, and writing essays. Indeed,
there are seven chapters within this volume that describe such studies with Coh-Metrix (see in this
volume: Adam, McCarthy, Boonthum, & McNamara, this volume; Bell, McCarthy, & McNamara, this

McNamara&Graesser

13

volume; Crossley & McNamara; Jackson, Boonthum, & McNamara, this volume; McCarthy &
McNamara, this volume; McNamara et al., this volume; Weston, Crossley, & McNamara, this volume).
Studies of natural language using Coh-Metrix afford analyses of discourse under a wide variety of
circumstances, and thus have the potential to improve our understanding of multiple aspects of language
processing (e.g., Crossley, Salsbury, & McNamara, in press; Duran, Hall, McCarthy, & McNamara, 2010;
Hancock et al., 2010). Studies of natural language using Coh-Metrix are also motivated by our interests in
dialogue management in the context of intelligent tutoring systems. Coh-Metrix and Coh-Metrix tools
have played important roles in the context of AutoTutor (DMello & Graesser, this volume; Graesser et
al., this volume; Graesser, Person, Lu, Jeon, & McDaniel, 2005), iSTART (Jackson et al., this volume),
question asking and answering (Graesser, Rus, Cai, & Hu, this volume), and W-Pal (McNamara et al.,
this volume).
One example of such a study was conducted by Graesser, Jeon, Yang, and Cai (2007). In this
study, tutorial dialogues in the context of AutoTutor were analyzed using Coh-Metrix to investigate the
effect of college students background knowledge on various cohesion relations in the dialogue. CohMetrix was used in this study to compare the tutorial dialogues of high-knowledge students who had
already taken the relevant topics in a college physics class as compared to novice students who had not
taken college physics. AutoTutor is an animated pedagogical agent that scaffolds students to learn about
conceptual physics and other topics by holding conversations in natural language (Graesser, this volume;
Graesser, Jackson, & McDaniel, 2007; Van Lehn, Graesser, et al., 2007). AutoTutor scaffolds students to
generate ideal answers to difficult questions requiring deep reasoning by using a variety of dialogue
moves (e.g., hints, prompts, assertions, corrections, answers to student questions). The findings of the
study conducted by Graesser, Jeon, et al. (2007) showed that the tutorial dialogues of high-knowledge
students shared substantially similar linguistic features with the dialogue of novice students in coreference, syntax, connectives, causal cohesion, logical operators, and other measures. However, there
were significant differences in the dialogue with high-knowledge students versus novice students in

McNamara&Graesser

14

semantic or conceptual overlap. This result supported the notion that background knowledge on subject
matter promotes deeper levels of comprehension (i.e., the mental models) of conceptual physics while
interacting with AutoTutor (see also, Graesser, Jeon, Cai, & McNamara, 2008; Jeon, 2008).
Another example of a study of natural language was conducted by McCarthy, Guess, and
McNamara (2009). This study examined the nature of paraphrases in the context of iSTART (see Jackson,
Boonthum, & McNamara, this volume) and developed a computational model to predict the quality of the
paraphrases. Two sentences can be considered to be paraphrases of one another if their meanings are
equivalent but their words and syntax are different. Understanding paraphrasing is important in a number
of contexts because paraphrasing can be used to aid comprehension, stimulate prior knowledge, and assist
in writing-skills development. However, computational studies of paraphrasing have been primarily
conducted using artificial, edited paraphrases and has most often examined only binary dimensions (i.e.,
is or is not a paraphrase). By contrast, McCarthy et al. examined a large database (N = 1,998) of natural
paraphrases generated by high school students that was collected in the context of the reading strategy
tutoring system, iSTART. The paraphrases were assessed by expert raters along 10 dimensions (see
McCarthy & McNamara, this volume). A model including LSA (semantics), minimal edit distances
(syntax), and the difference in length between the text and the paraphrase correlated .51 with the human
evaluations of the paraphrases. These results suggested that semantic completeness and syntactical
similarity were the primary components of paraphrase quality.
A third example of a natural language study is in the realm of writing. We are currently
developing a writing strategy tutoring system called the Writing-Pal that will provide high school students
with instruction and practice on writing prompt-based essays (see McNamara et al., this volume). One
part of the W-Pal project has involved collecting essays written by students so that we can better
understand the linguistic features of essays and how those features relate to their quality. One such study
was conducted by McNamara, Crossley, and McCarthy (2010). Coh-Metrix was used to examine the
degree to which high and low proficiency essays could be identified using linguistic indices of cohesion

McNamara&Graesser

15

(i.e., co-reference and connectives), syntactic complexity (e.g., number of words before the main verb,
sentence structure overlap), lexical diversity, and the characteristics of words (e.g., frequency,
concreteness, imagability). Contrary to expectations, 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 MTLD), and word frequency (as measured by CELEX, logarithm for all
words). Using 26 validated indices of referential and semantic cohesion from Coh-Metrix, none showed
differences between high and low proficiency essays and no indices of cohesion correlated with essay
ratings. Although lexical diversity might be associated with cohesion, the lexical diversity measure
indicated that the higher quality essays were higher in diversity and thus lower in cohesion. Otherwise,
cohesion as measured by Coh-Metrix played no role in predicting the quality of the essays. These results
indicate that the textual features that characterize good student writing are not aligned with those features
that facilitate reading comprehension such as text cohesion. Rather, higher quality essays were more
likely to contain linguistic features associated with text difficulty and sophisticated language.
Coh-Metrix Text Easability Components
One motivation for the development of Coh-Metrix was to provide better measures of text
difficulty (see e.g., Duran, Bellissens, Taylor, & McNamara, 2007), and particularly the specific sources
of potential challenges or scaffolds within texts. One limitation of traditional readability measures is that
they consider only the superficial features of text, which in turn tend to be predictive of readers surface
understanding: their understanding of the words and separate sentences. In turn, aassessments that are
used to validate or provide readability scores most often use a cloze task. Cloze tasks (i.e., filling in
missing words in text) assesses comprehension only within sentences based on word associations
(Shanahan, Kamil, & Tobin, 1982) and depends primarily on decoding rather than language
comprehension skills (Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008). However, many comprehension models
(Graesser & McNamara, in press; Kintsch, 1998; McNamara & Magliano, 2010; Van Dijk & Kintsch,
1983) propose that there are multidimensional levels of understanding that emerge during the

McNamara&Graesser

16

comprehension process, including (at least) surface, textbase, and situation model levels. Readability
formulas by contrast assume a uni-dimensional representation.
Uni-dimensional representations of comprehension ignore the importance of readers deeper
levels of understanding. Another limitation is that uni-dimensional metrics of text difficulty are not
particularly helpful to educators when specific guidance is needed for diagnosing what is wrong and
planning remediation for students. Readability formulas do not identify the particular characteristic of the
text that may be challenging or helpful to a student. One major advantage of Coh-Metrix is that it
provides metrics on multiple levels of language and discourse.
One reason that the difficulty or ease of a text should not be assessed at only one level of
language is because multiple levels often work to compensate for one another (McNamara, Louwerse, &
Graesser, in press). For example, in a recent analysis we found that narrative texts (stories, novels) tend to
have low co-referential cohesion and low verb cohesion (McNamara, Graesser, & Louwerse, in press). By
themselves, these indices may imply that narratives are difficult to read. However, narratives also tend to
be composed of more frequent words and they often have high causal cohesion and temporal cohesion,
allowing the reader to form a coherent mental model of the contents of the text. There are times when
language in narrative texts at the situation model levels compensates for more challenging sentences and
low overlap in words and concepts. By contrast, science texts are composed of rare words, making it
challenging for students to understand the concepts in the text. These challenges are sometimes offset by
reducing the syntactic complexity of the text and increasing the overlap in words and concepts (i.e., coreferential cohesion).
Thus, Coh-Metrix, in contrast to traditional measures of text readability, has the potential to offer
a more complete picture of the potential challenges that may be faced by a reader as well as the potential
scaffolds that may be offered by the text. Coh-Metrix is motivated by theories of discourse and text
comprehension. Such theories describe comprehension at multiple levels, from shallow, text-based

McNamara&Graesser

17

comprehension to deeper levels of comprehension that integrates multiple ideas in the text and brings to
bear information that elaborates the ideas in the text using world and domain knowledge (Graesser &
McNamara, in press). Coh-Metrix assesses challenges that may occur at the word and sentence levels. In
addition, it is able to assess deeper levels of language in terms of cohesion and the situation model. By
doing so, it comes closer to having the capability to estimate how well a reader will comprehend a text at
deeper levels of cognition.
In a recent study (Graesser, McNamara, & Kulikowich, in prepartion), we have developed CohMetrix Text Easability Components to describe the multiple levels of text ease and potential challenges
that arise from textual features. To do so, we examined 54 Coh-Metrix indices calculated on 37,651 texts
from the Touchstone Applied Science Associates (TASA) corpus. This corpus comprises excerpts
(M=287 words) from texts (without paragraph break markers) that a typical senior in high school might
have encountered throughout schooling in kindergarten through 12th grade. The text genres primarily
comprise language arts, science, and social studies/history texts, but also included text in the domains of
business, health, home economics, and industrial arts. The TASA corpus is the most comprehension
collection of K-12 texts currently available for research. A principal components analysis of the corpus
revealed that the following 8 dimensions (in order of robustness) accounted for 67% of the variability
among texts. We consider the first five of these components to be most highly associated with text ease
(and they were the most robust components, accounting for 54% of the variance).
1. Narrativity. Narrative text tells a story, with characters, events, places, and things that are
familiar to the reader. Narrative is closely affiliated with everyday oral conversation. This robust
component is highly affiliated with word familiarity, world knowledge, and oral language. Nonnarrative texts on less familiar topics would lie at the opposite end of the continuum.
2. Referential cohesion. This component includes Coh-Metrix indices that assess referential
cohesion. High cohesion text contains words and ideas that overlap across sentences and the

McNamara&Graesser

18

entire text, forming explicit threads that connect the text for the reader. Low cohesion text is
typically more difficult to process because there are fewer threads that tie the ideas together for
the reader.
3. Syntactic Simplicity. This component reflects the degree to which the sentences in the text
contain fewer words and use more simple, familiar syntactic structures, which are less
challenging to process. At the opposite end of the continuum are texts that contain sentences with
more words and use complex, unfamiliar syntactic structures.
4. Word Concreteness. Texts that contain content words that are concrete, meaningful, and evoke
mental images are easier to process and understand. Abstract words represent concepts that are
difficult to represent visually. Texts that contain more abstract words are more challenging to
understand.
5. Deep cohesion. This dimension reflects the degree to which the text contains causal, intentional,
and temporal connectives. These connectives help the reader to form a more coherent and deeper
understanding of the causal events, processes, and actions in the text.
6. Verb cohesion. This component reflects the degree to which there are overlapping verbs in the
text. When there are repeated verbs, the text likely includes a more coherent event structure that
will facilitate and enhance situation model understanding.
7. Logical cohesion. This component reflects the degree to which the text contains explicit
adversative, additive, and comparative connectives to express relations in the text. This
component reflects the number of logical relations in the text that are explicitly conveyed. This
component is related to the readers deeper understanding of the relations in the text.
8.

Temporal cohesion. Texts that contain more cues about temporality and that have more
consistent temporality (i.e., tense, aspect) are easier to process and understand. In addition,

McNamara&Graesser

19

temporal cohesion contributes to the readers situation model level understanding of the events in
the text.
Using the results of the analysis, we can compute percentile scores for the eight components. A
percentile score varies from 0 to 100%, with higher scores meaning the text is likely to be more difficult
to read than other texts in the corpus. For example, a percentile score of 80% means that 80% of the texts
are easier and 20% are more difficult. Four such texts are presented below, including two narrative texts
and two science texts. We have only graphed the first five components because they account for the most
variance in the characteristics of the texts (and for ease of processing of the graphs).

As would be predicted, the novel and drama texts are substantially more narrative than the two
science texts. It is well documented that narrative is easier to read than informational texts (Bruner, 1986;
Haberlandt & Graesser, 1985; Graesser, Olde, & Klettke, 2002), a fact that should be incorporated in

McNamara&Graesser

20

assessments of text ease and complexity. However, it is possible for narratives to have informational
content that explains the setting or context, and it is possible for science texts to have story-like language
(e.g., the journey of a water molecule through the water system). In either case, the move toward
increased narrativity will generally make the text easier to understand.
The two example narrative texts (Jane Eyre and Glass Menagerie) are declared to be at a 9-10
grade band. However, they have very different profiles on the various dimensions. Jane Eyre is more
difficult when inspecting syntax (as well as verb cohesion, logical cohesion, and temporal cohesion,
which are not presented on the graph), but it is less difficult with respect to word abstractness and deep
cohesion; the two narratives have about the same referential cohesion demands. These are very different
profiles of text ease even though both texts were declared to be in the Grade 9-10 band.
The two science texts have very different grade bands declared. Elementary Particles is grade 6-8
whereas Gravity Reversed is grade 11-12. However, Gravity Reversed is not uniformly more difficult on
all Coh-Metrix dimensions. Gravity Reversed is more difficult with respect to referential cohesion,
syntax, and verb cohesions, but the opposite is the case with respect to narrativity and deep cohesion, (as
well as logical and temporal cohesion); its a draw with respect to word concreteness. Therefore, these
comparative profiles should raise questions about the grade levels of these texts.
Such a picture of texts is hoped to provide teachers with more information about text ease, and by
consequence, their ease of processing and at the lower end of the spectrum, their potential challenges.
This information can in turn inform their pedagogical practice. One goal is to bring to fruition the CohMetrix project so that educators can more fully understand the complexity and nature of the texts that they
use in the classroom, particularly in concert with their pedagogical goals and the individual abilities of
their students.

McNamara&Graesser

21

Conclusion
Our goal in the Coh-Metrix project has been to provide indices for the characteristics of texts on
multiple levels of analysis, including word characteristics, sentence characteristics, and the discourse
relationships between ideas in text, within one tool. Our objective has been to go beyond traditional
measures of readability that focus on surface characteristics of texts, which in turn tend to principally
affect surface comprehension. Indeed, the validation of traditional readability algorithms using word and
sentence characteristics (e.g., number of letters or number of words) has been almost exclusively done
using assessments that primarily tap surface comprehension (e.g., cloze tests). Coh-Metrix can be used to
better understand differences between texts and to explore the extent to which linguistic and discourse
features successfully distinguish between text types. Coh-Metrix can also be used to develop and improve
natural language processing approaches.
In the course of using Coh-Metrix and validating its measures, we have come to better understand
differences between texts and which indices are most reliable in detecting differences between texts at
meaningful, consequential levels. This work has culminated most recently in the development of the CohMetrix Easability Components. These components provide a more complete picture of text ease (and
hence potential challenges) that may emerge from the linguistic characteristics of texts. The Text
Easability components provided by Coh-Metrix go beyond traditional readability measures by providing
metrics of text characteristics on multiple levels of language and discourse. Moreover, they are well
aligned with theories of text and discourse comprehension (e.g., Graesser et al., 1994; Kintsch, 1998).
Coh-Metrix offers numerous opportunities to researchers, teachers, and students across a variety
of fields. With the unlimited wealth and diversity of texts that technology such as the internet brings,
computer assessment of text stands to increase dramatically in the next few years, and Coh-Metrix offers
what may be the best approach for such assessments to be conducted.

McNamara&Graesser

22

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to numerous people who have contributed to the Coh-Metrix project over the past decade
and who have provided feedback and help in writing this chapter. Without these collaborations, this
project would not have been possible. Many of the projects reported in this chapter were partially funded
by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES R305G020018-02). The development of the Coh-Metrix Text
Easability Components was funded by the Gates Foundation.

McNamara&Graesser

23

Suggested Readings
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371395.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

McNamara&Graesser

24

References
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (in press). Dynamic effects of task type practice on the Japanese EFL university
students writing: Text analysis with Coh-Metrix. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied
natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bell, C., McCarthy, P.M., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). Gender and language. In P. M. McCarthy & C.
Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintschs computational model to improve
instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. New York: Plenum Press.
Chall, J. S. & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited, the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge,
MA: Brookline Books.
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crossley, S.A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). The role of lexical cohesive devices in
triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics.
Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Interlanguage talk: What can breadth of knowledge features
tell us about input and output differences? In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural
language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
DMello, S. K. & Graesser, A. C. (in press). Automated detection of cognitive-affective states from text
dialogues. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing:
Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
DuBay, W. (2004). The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.
Duran, N., Bellissens, C., Taylor, R., & McNamara, D. (2007). Qualifying text difficulty with automated
indices of cohesion and semantics. In D.S. McNamara and G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th

McNamara&Graesser

25

Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 233-238). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science
Society.
Duran, N.D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P.M., & McNamara, D.S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of
conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied
Psycholinguistics.
Duran, N.D., McCarthy, P.M., Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Using temporal cohesion to
predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 212223.
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Goldman, S., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (1999). Narrative comprehension, causality, and
coherence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C. (this volume). AutoTutor. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural
language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Graesser, A. C., DMello, S. K., Hu, X., Cai, Z., Olney, A., & Morgam, B. (in press). AutoTutor. In P. M.
McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation,
and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. (Eds.)(2003). Handbook of discourse processes.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., & McDaniel, B. (2007). AutoTutor holds conversations with learners that
are responsive to their cognitive and emotional states. Educational Technology, 47, 1922.
Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Automatic analyses of language,
discourse, and situation models. In J. Auracher & W. van Peer (Eds.), New beginnings in literary
studies (pp. 7288). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yang, Y., & Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue.
Information Design Journal, 15, 199213.

McNamara&Graesser

26

Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse
comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science.
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., & Kulikowich, J. (in preparation). Theoretical and automated
dimensions of text difficulty: How easy are the texts we read?
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on
cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202.
Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M.
C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp.
231263). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A.C., Person, N., Lu, Z., Jeon, M.G., & McDaniel, B. (2005). Learning while holding a
conversation with a computer. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technologybased education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 143-167). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Graesser, A. C., Rus, V., Cai, Z., & Hu, X. (in press). Question answering and asking. In P. M. McCarthy
& C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and
resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371395.
Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General 114, 357-374.
Hancock, J.T., Beaver, D.I., Chung, C.K., Frazee, J., Pennebaker, J.W., Graesser, A., & Cai, Z. (2010).
Social language processing: A framework for analyzing the communication of terrorists and
authoritarian regimes. International Journal of Language, Culture, and Society.
Hall, C., McCarthy, P.M., Lewis, G.A., Lee, D.S., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). A Coh-Metrix assessment
of American and English/Welsh Legal English. Coyote Papers: Psycholinguistic and Computational
Perspectives. University of Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 40-54.

McNamara&Graesser

27

Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Applying NLP metrics to students self explanations. In P.
M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification,
investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Jeon, M. (2008). Automated analyses of cohesion and coherence in tutorial dialogue. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Memphis.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. B., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills
they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 12, 281 300.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Kintsch, W. &Kintsch, E. (this volume). In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural
language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Klare, G. R. (19741975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.
Koslin, B. L., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An Effectiveness Measure in Reading. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board.
Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Latent Semantic
Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Louwerse, M.M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive
Linguistics, 12, 291-315.
McCarthy, P.M., Dufty, D., Hempelman, C., Cai., Z., Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (in press).
Evaluating givenness/newness. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language
processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
McCarthy, P.M., Guess, R.H., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). The components of paraphrase evaluations.
Behavioral Research Methods, 41, 682-690.

McNamara&Graesser

28

McCarthy, P.M. & Jarvis, S., (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated
approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 381-392.
McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). User language paraphrase corpus. In P. M. McCarthy &
C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and
resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
McCarthy, P.M., Renner, A.M., Duncan, M.G., Duran, N.D., Lightman, E.J., & McNamara, D.S. (2008).
Identifying topic sentencehood. Behavior Research and Methods, 40, 647-664.
McNamara, D.S. (in press). Computational methods to extract meaning from text and advance theories of
human cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science.
McNamara, D.S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence
and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
McNamara, D.S., Crossley, S.A., & McCarthy, P.M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality.
Written Communication, 27, 57-86.
McNamara, D.S., Graesser, A.C., & Louwerse, M.M. (in press). Sources of text difficulty: Across the
ages and genres. In J.P. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning
and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
McNamara, D.S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text
coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B.
Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., McCarthy, P.M., & Graesser, A.C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing
linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330.
McNamara, D. S., Raine, R., Roscoe, R., Crossley, S., Jackson, G. T., Dai, J., Cai, Z., et al. (in press). The
Writing-Pal: Natural language algorithms to support intelligent tutoring on writing strategies. In P. M.
McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation,
and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

McNamara&Graesser

29

Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D.S. (2010). Contributions of self-explanation to
comprehension of high and low cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 641-667.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in
the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242.
Renner, A., McCarthy, P., Boonthum, C., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). Maximizing ANLP evaluation:
Harmonizing flawed input. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language
processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic
markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 3760.
Shanahan, T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229255.
Singer, M., & Leon, J. (2007). Psychological studies of higher language processes: Behavioral and
empirical approaches. In F. Schmalhofer & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the
brain: Inference and comprehension processes. Mahwah, NJ.
Stenner, A. J., Burdick, H., Sanford, E. E., & Burdick, D. S. (2006). How accurate are Lexile text
measures? Journal of Applied Measurement, 7(3), 307-22
Ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing time in natural language: The dynamic interpretation of tense
and aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). When are
tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 362.
Weston, J., Crossley, S. & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Computationally assessing human judgments of
freewriting quality. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing:
Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Zwaan, R.A. & Radvansky, G.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory.
Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.

McNamara&Graesser

30