A few years ago, an e-mail appeared on the ASHA Language and Learning Division online discussion list asking whether a particular readability formula used by the National Cancer Institute would be useful in assessing the readability of text used by students in schools. The writer was interested in using the data at an IEP. Governmental agencies and private companies often estimate readability in order to control the difficulty level of forms, instructions, and brochures they give to consumers. Are these measures useful for the speech-language-pathologist (SLP)? The current issue of TLD is designed to help SLPs answer this question.

Schools and publishers use an array of quantitative and subjective methods to match students to books. The results are expressed as grade levels, grade level ranges, letters, DRP units, and lexiles, to name just a few. Some measures are tied to publishers' own criterion-referenced tests of student achievement and others to common standardized reading tests. Some books are assigned levels by teacher judgment. It is important for language specialists to understand the variables that underlie these assessments of text difficulty in order to interpret the numbers effectively with a clear understanding of their value and their limitations.

In Readability Revisited (Chall and Dale, 1995), Jeanne Chall divided the work that has been done in readability into two paradigms: the classic, using readability formulas, which attempt to measure semantic and syntactic factors, and the cognitive-structural, which attempts to measure or evaluate "ideas, organization, cohesion, and the like." Chall and Dale proposed a synthesis of these paradigms in the estimation of text difficulty. This readability issue of TLD will allow SLPs to examine the assessment of text difficulty from multiple perspectives. This examination can help SLPs to think critically about the ways readability is used in school, clinic, and research settings.

In this issue, Tom Gunning presents an overview of the diverse ways in which readability is currently being used in schools in an attempt to provide students with appropriate books. He provides both a clear introduction to the field of readability and a valuable tool for future reference.

Students with reading disabilities have to work hard to get information from text. While they are working to master decoding skills, they need a great deal of practice to gain automaticity in word recognition. They are unlikely to get that practice if the books that are provided to them are too difficult for them to read or insulting to their age and intelligence. Using case studies, Andrea W. Kotula walks TLD readers through the process of finding reading material to match the interests and abilities of three different students in a reading clinic, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches along with a computer database of book titles.

Bonnie Meyer explores the interaction among text, task, reader, and strategy variables in readability. She shows how the readability of text can be enhanced by increasing the words that signal its underlying logical structure to the reader. She also shows that it is possible to increase a reader's comprehension by providing instruction in strategies for attending to the signals. Her data on fifth graders and on African American seniors with low levels of education underscore the importance of considering text structure in looking at readability.

As an SLP working with students with LLD, and more recently an editor of books for this population, my interest is in the special problems of analyzing text difficulty for these students. My chapter shows how students' oral reading errors can guide SLPs in simplifying difficult text and also in helping students confront complex material.

What role does word difficulty play in the assessment of readability? How is word difficulty determined in a readability formula? Where does background knowledge fit in? What does it mean to know a word? These are a few of the questions that Steven Stahl discusses in his article.

The five articles are followed by a case study and scenarios, which show how readability has been or might be used in school, clinical and research settings, and a group of exercises with further examples of readability data.

For those interested in pursuing the topic of readability further, I believe that there is no better place to start than with Readability Revisited: the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula by Jeanne Chall and Edgar Dale, published in 1995 by Brookline Books. In addition to providing all the materials necessary to use the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, the authors discuss, in colorful detail, the history, scope, scientific basis, and the uses and misuses of readability measurement. They provide as well a historical perspective on the word lists used in assessing readability and guidelines on creating readable text.

The other authors in this issue are from the fields of education and educational psychology and I very much appreciate their contributions. I would like to thank Andrea W. Kotula, head of the Readability Special Interest Group at the International Reading Association, for sharing her suggestions and contacts as this project got underway, and Li Moon for sharing her experiences with readability in the schools. I am especially grateful to Katherine G. Butler for her enthusiasm and support for this exploration of readability.

REFERENCE