不同文化水平的聋人与听障成人简体文本复杂性评价方法的比较

Oliver Alonzo, J. Trussell, Becca Dingman, Matt Huenerfauth
{"title":"不同文化水平的聋人与听障成人简体文本复杂性评价方法的比较","authors":"Oliver Alonzo, J. Trussell, Becca Dingman, Matt Huenerfauth","doi":"10.1145/3411764.3445038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research has explored using Automatic Text Simplification for reading assistance, with prior work identifying benefits and interests from Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) adults. While the evaluation of these technologies remains a crucial aspect of research in the area, researchers lack guidance in terms of how to evaluate text complexity with DHH readers. Thus, in this work we conduct methodological research to evaluate metrics identified from prior work (including reading speed, comprehension questions, and subjective judgements of understandability and readability) in terms of their effectiveness for evaluating texts modified to be at various complexity levels with DHH adults at different literacy levels. Subjective metrics and low-linguistic-complexity comprehension questions distinguished certain text complexity levels with participants with lower literacy. Among participants with higher literacy, only subjective judgements of text readability distinguished certain text complexity levels. For all metrics, participants with higher literacy scored higher or provided more positive subjective judgements overall.","PeriodicalId":20451,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Complexity of Simplified Texts among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Adults at Different Literacy Levels\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Alonzo, J. Trussell, Becca Dingman, Matt Huenerfauth\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3411764.3445038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research has explored using Automatic Text Simplification for reading assistance, with prior work identifying benefits and interests from Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) adults. While the evaluation of these technologies remains a crucial aspect of research in the area, researchers lack guidance in terms of how to evaluate text complexity with DHH readers. Thus, in this work we conduct methodological research to evaluate metrics identified from prior work (including reading speed, comprehension questions, and subjective judgements of understandability and readability) in terms of their effectiveness for evaluating texts modified to be at various complexity levels with DHH adults at different literacy levels. Subjective metrics and low-linguistic-complexity comprehension questions distinguished certain text complexity levels with participants with lower literacy. Among participants with higher literacy, only subjective judgements of text readability distinguished certain text complexity levels. For all metrics, participants with higher literacy scored higher or provided more positive subjective judgements overall.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

研究已经探索了使用自动文本简化来帮助阅读,之前的工作确定了聋人和听力障碍(DHH)成年人的利益和兴趣。虽然对这些技术的评估仍然是该领域研究的一个重要方面,但研究人员在如何使用DHH阅读器评估文本复杂性方面缺乏指导。因此,在这项工作中,我们进行了方法学研究,以评估从先前工作中确定的指标(包括阅读速度、理解问题以及对可理解性和可读性的主观判断),以评估不同文化水平的DHH成人修改为不同复杂程度的文本的有效性。主观度量和低语言复杂性理解问题与低文化水平的参与者区分了某些文本复杂性水平。在读写能力较高的参与者中,只有对文本可读性的主观判断才能区分某些文本的复杂程度。在所有指标中,识字率较高的参与者得分更高,或者总体上提供了更积极的主观判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Complexity of Simplified Texts among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Adults at Different Literacy Levels
Research has explored using Automatic Text Simplification for reading assistance, with prior work identifying benefits and interests from Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) adults. While the evaluation of these technologies remains a crucial aspect of research in the area, researchers lack guidance in terms of how to evaluate text complexity with DHH readers. Thus, in this work we conduct methodological research to evaluate metrics identified from prior work (including reading speed, comprehension questions, and subjective judgements of understandability and readability) in terms of their effectiveness for evaluating texts modified to be at various complexity levels with DHH adults at different literacy levels. Subjective metrics and low-linguistic-complexity comprehension questions distinguished certain text complexity levels with participants with lower literacy. Among participants with higher literacy, only subjective judgements of text readability distinguished certain text complexity levels. For all metrics, participants with higher literacy scored higher or provided more positive subjective judgements overall.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信