190 Understanding Rational Decision Making
144 Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Northhampton,
MA: Brookline Books.
145 Smith, D., Stenner, A. J., Horabin, I., & Smith, M. (1989). The Lexile scale in theory and practice: Final report.
Washington, DC: MetaMetrics. (ERIC document reproduction service number ED 307 577).
146 Koslin, B. I., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An effective measure in reading. New York: College
Entrance Examination Board.
147 Benjamin, R. G. (2012). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the
analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review , 24 (1), 63–88.
148 DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Online Submission. (ERIC document reproduction
service number ED 490 073).
149 Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehen-
sion. Topics in Cognitive Science , 3 (2), 371–398.
150 Duffy, T. M., & Kabance, P. (1982). Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology , 74 (5), 733–748.
151 Coleman, E. B. (1962). Improving comprehensibility by shortening sentences. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy , 46 (2), 131–134.
152 See n138, Klare (1963), p. 14.
Schriver, K. A. (2000). Readability formulas in the new millennium: What’s the use? ACM Journal of
Computer Documentation (JCD) , 24 (3), 138–140.
153 Davison, A., & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case
study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly , 17 (2), 187–209.
154 Charrow, R., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: Psycholinguistic study of
jury instructions. Columbia Law Review , 79 , 1306–1374.
155 Charrow, V. R. (1988). Readability vs. comprehensibility: A case study in improving a real document. In
A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered
(pp. 85–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
156 Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior , 8 (2),
129–152.
157 Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the develop-
ment of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguis-
tics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
158 Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1968). Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences. The Quar-
terly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 20 (2), 129–138.
Schwartz, D., Sparkman, J. P., & Deese, J. (1970). The process of understanding and judgments of com-
prehensibility. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior , 9 (1), 87–93.
Stolz, W. S. (1967). A study of the ability to decode grammatically novel sentences. Journal of Verbal Learn-
ing & Verbal Behavior , 6 (6), 867–873.
159 See n157, Fodor et al. (1974).
Hakes, D. T., & Cairns, H. S. (1970). Sentence comprehension and relative pronouns. Perception & Psycho-
physics , 8 (1), 5–8.
Larkin, W., & Burns, D. (1977). Sentence comprehension and memory for embedded structure. Mem-
ory & Cognition , 5 (1), 17–22.
160 Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions
in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology , 5 (3), 257–274.
161 See n138, Klare (1963), p. 162.
162 Sturt, P., Keller, F., & Dubey, A. (2010). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and
without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language , 62 (4), 333–351.
163 Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation
in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition , 12 (5), 421–430.
164 Kamil, M. L. (1972). Memory of repeated words and parallel structure in compound sentences. Journal of
Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior , 11 (5), 634–643.
165 Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals of linguistic theory
(pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
166 Gough, P. B. (1966). The verification of sentences: The effects of delay of evidence and sentence length.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 5 (5), 492–496.
Savin, H. B., & Perchonock, E. (1965). Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sen-
tences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 4 (5), 348–353.