ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2016
A new principle for the standardization of long paragraphs for reading speed analysis.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The design of Malay sentences for measuring reading performance for the Radner-UKM Malay Reading Charts.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Short Italian Wilkins Rate of Reading Test for repeated-measures designs in optometry and neuropsychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance-Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Reading charts in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the reliability, validity, and statistical comparability of long paragraphs that were developed to be equivalent in construction and difficulty.
methodsSeven long paragraphs were developed that were equal in syntax, morphology, and number and position of words (111), with the same number of syllables (179) and number of characters (660). For validity analyses, the paragraphs were compared with the mean reading speed of a set of seven sentence optotypes of the RADNER Reading Charts (mean of 7 × 14 = 98 words read). Reliability analyses were performed by calculating the Cronbach's alpha value and the corrected total item correlation. Sixty participants (aged 20-77 years) read the paragraphs and the sentences (distance 40 cm; font: Times New Roman 12 pt). Test items were presented randomly; reading length was measured with a stopwatch.
resultsReliability analysis yielded a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.988. When the long paragraphs were compared in pairwise fashion, significant differences were found in 13 of the 21 pairs (p < 0.05). In two sequences of three paragraphs each and in eight pairs of paragraphs, the paragraphs did not differ significantly, and these paragraph combinations are therefore suitable for comparative research studies. The mean reading speed was 173.34 ± 24.01 words per minute (wpm) for the long paragraphs and 198.26 ± 28.60 wpm for the sentence optotypes. The maximum difference in reading speed was 5.55 % for the long paragraphs and 2.95 % for the short sentence optotypes. The correlation between long paragraphs and sentence optotypes was high (r = 0.9243).
conclusionsDespite good reliability and equivalence in construction and degree of difficulty, a statistically significant difference in reading speed can occur between long paragraphs. Since statistical significance should be dependent only on the persons tested, either standardizing long paragraphs for statistical equality of reading speed measurements or increasing the number of presented paragraphs is recommended for comparative investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26542120What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.