IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamest/v27y1976i2p118-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the readability of abstracts with their source documents

Author

Listed:
  • Rosemary King

Abstract

Readability levels of 30 items from Child Development Abstracts and 30 passages from their corresponding journal articles were compared by a CAL SNOBOL computer program referenced to a cloze criterion. The difference between mean predicted cloze restoration percentage scores of 26.77 for abstracts and 30.37 for articles proved to be significant beyond the .05 level. Results supported the hypothesis that abstracts were more difficult to read than their source documents, but indicated that perhaps both types of materials were too hard for undergraduates.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosemary King, 1976. "A comparison of the readability of abstracts with their source documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(2), pages 118-121, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:27:y:1976:i:2:p:118-121
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.4630270207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270207
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.4630270207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James Hartley & James W. Pennebaker & Claire Fox, 2003. "Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 389-398, July.
    2. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:27:y:1976:i:2:p:118-121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.