A Comparison of Features for Automatic Readability Assessment

Authors
Lijun Feng, Martin Jansche, Matt Huenerfauth, Noémie Elhadad
Year
2010
Publication
Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '10), Posters
DOI
10.5555/1944566.1944598

Summary

Feng et al. (2010) is a computational-linguistics paper that compares a wide variety of text features for automatically predicting the grade level of reading material aimed at primary-school students. The motivation is both intrinsic — traditional readability formulas such as Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning FOG, and SMOG rely on shallow counts of syllables and sentence length and perform poorly on realistic corpora — and extrinsic, because robust grade-level prediction is a building block for automatic text simplification systems that help readers with limited literacy, including people with intellectual disabilities, second-language learners, and children. The authors treat readability as a multi-class classification task over a 1,433-article corpus of Weekly Reader magazine content labelled for grades 2 through 5. They systematically evaluate five families of features: (1) shallow features such as average sentence length, Flesch-Kincaid score, and Chall-Dale difficult-word rate; (2) language-modelling features based on perplexity scores from unigram through 5-gram models trained on text, POS tags, and word/POS pairs; (3) parsed syntactic features from the Charniak parser, including counts of noun phrases, verb phrases, prepositional phrases, and SBARs; (4) part-of-speech features covering nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions as content or function words; and (5) discourse features comprising entity-density, lexical chains, coreference inference, and Barzilay-Lapata entity grids. Feature sets are evaluated with LIBSVM and Weka Logistic Regression under 10-fold cross-validation, with combinations stress-tested through group-wise greedy feature selection.

Key Findings

The paper's headline result is a ~74% classification accuracy from a judicious combination of features selected by group-wise add-one-best greedy search, a substantial jump from the 63% state-of-the-art reported in prior work. Language-modelling features, especially those trained directly on the Weekly Reader corpus rather than external corpora, had the highest individual predictive power (68.38% with LIBSVM). Among discourse features, entity density was the strongest single family (59.63%), outperforming lexical chain, coreference inference, and entity grid features; combining discourse subsets gave no benefit over entity density alone. Among POS features, nouns were the most predictive word class (58.15%), followed by prepositions; verb-phrase and noun-phrase counts matched their word-level counterparts among parsed syntactic features. A striking negative result: the Flesch-Kincaid formula correctly predicted only 20 of 1,433 texts (1.4% accuracy) when used as a fixed formula, although treating its components as features in a logistic-regression model yielded above 50% accuracy. Among shallow features, average sentence length dominated — cheaper to compute and more useful than most syntactic features. Entity-density and POS-noun features were highly correlated, indicating that the predictive signal of entity density is largely captured by noun counts.

Relevance to Practice

For accessibility practitioners, this paper is a foundational reference for understanding how automatic readability assessment actually works and why off-the-shelf readability formulas often mislead. It matters for cognitive accessibility, plain-language programmes, and text-simplification pipelines that target readers with intellectual disabilities or low literacy: practitioners should not trust a single Flesch-Kincaid score as ground truth, and should recognise that average sentence length is a cheap and competitive metric in its own right. The paper also legitimates investment in NLP-based readability pipelines over heuristic formulas when gradient-of-difficulty decisions drive content adaptation (e.g., serving different versions of the same material). Limitations include a narrow grade-2–5 corpus from a single publisher, a focus on generic primary-school text rather than specific accessibility use cases, and evaluation that measures classifier accuracy rather than the downstream user experience of readers who rely on simplified content.