Claims

Revising texts to improve readability-formula scores often produces nonexistent or insignificant comprehension gains

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1991 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? When materials are revised to make them more readable by formula, gains in comprehension are often either nonexistent or insignificant. → Mary H. Sawyer 1991

Evidence

Mary H. Sawyer 1991

Mary H. Sawyer. (1991). A Review of Research in Revising Instructional Text. Journal of Reading Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969109547744

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports, citing Duffy and Kabance (1982) among others, that a readable-writing approach to revision "failed to produce practical improvements in comprehension on several reading-to-do tasks" even after a reduction of six grade levels.

"when materials are revised to make them more "readable," gains in comprehension are often either nonexistent or insignificant"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id readability-revision-gains-nonexistent-insignificant
title Revising texts to improve readability-formula scores often produces nonexistent or insignificant comprehension gains
description Revising texts to improve readability-formula scores often produces nonexistent or insignificant comprehension gains
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 1991
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — mary-h-sawyer-1991

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.