Badania readability – historia i współczesność

Tomasz Piekot

Published: 2026-02-05

Vol. 830 No. 1 (2026)

Readability research: Past and present

Tomasz Piekot

Abstract

This article offers a synthetic overview of research on readability, understood as a stylistic property that may influence reading ease. It aims to discuss the origins of this research tradition and to identify current directions of development, with particular emphasis on the growing importance of NLP tools. The first part examines definitional issues and inconsistencies in terminology used in Poland. It then reviews the major tendencies that have shaped readability studies over the last decades: the educational origins of readability formulas, the transition from manual to automated calculations, methodological shifts, the increasing number of parameters, Anglocentrism, and the lack of conclusive evidence that improving a text’s readability actually enhances comprehension. Consequently, in the ISO 2023 plain-language standard, experienced text-simplification practitioners recommend replacing readability formulas with user testing. The article concludes with reflections on a potential new research paradigm that would combine generative artificial intelligence training with the CEFR-based concept of linguistic proficiency levels.

Keywords:

readability, reading ease, text accesibility, readability formulas

Download files

PDF (Polski)

Citation rules

Piekot, T. (2026). Readability research: Past and present. Poradnik Językowy, 830(1), 104–115. Retrieved from https://www.journals.polon.uw.edu.pl/index.php/pj/article/view/2019

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Allen, D. 2009. A study of the role of relative clauses in the simplification of news texts for learners of English. System 37 (4), s. 585–599.
Google Scholar

Aluisio, S. i in. 2010. Readability assessment for text simplification. W: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Fifth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, red. J. Tetreault, J. Burstein, C. Leacock, s. 1–9. Los Angeles: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
Google Scholar

Andruszkiewicz, M. 2018. Problem jasności w języku prawnym – aspekty lingwistyczne i teoretycznoprawne. Comparative Legilinguistics 31 (1), s. 7–25.
Google Scholar

Będkowski, M. 2019. Jasnościowcy. O stylu naukowym Szkoły Lwowsko-Warszawskiej z perspektywy idei prostego języka (rekonesans). Oblicza Komunikacji 11, s. 87–106.
Google Scholar

Björnsson, C.H. 1968. Läsbarhet. Stockholm: Liber.
Google Scholar

Bormuth, J.R. 1969. Development of Readability Analysis. Technical report, Project no. 7-0052. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Google Scholar

Bruce, B., Rubin, A., Starr, K. 1981. Why readability formulas fail. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (1), s. 50–52.
Google Scholar

Cardon, R., Doğruöz, A.S. 2025. Readability Measures and Automatic Text Simplification: In the Search of a Construct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09536.
Google Scholar

Carroll, J. i in. 1999. Simplifying text for language-impaired readers. W: Proceedings of 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), t. 99, red. H.S. Thompson, A. Lascarides s. 269–270. Bergen: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Chall, J. 1958. Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application. Technical report, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Google Scholar

Chall, J.S., Dale, E. 1995. Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Google Scholar

Coleman, E. 1965. On understanding prose: some determiners of its complexity. NSF Final Report GB-2604. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Google Scholar

Collins-Thompson, K., Callan, J.P. 2004. A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. W: Proceedings of the human language technology conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004, J.B. Hirschberg i in., s. 193–200. Boston: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Coster, W., Kauchak, D. 2011. Learning to simplify sentences using Wikipedia. W: Proceedings of the Workshop on Monolingual Text-To-Text Generation, red. K. Filippova, s. 1–9. Portland: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Council of Europe 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Google Scholar

Crossley, S.A., Allen, D.B., McNamara, D.S. 2011. Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language 23 (1), s. 84–101.
Google Scholar

Crossley, S.A., Greenfield, J., McNamara, D.S. 2008. Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly 42 (3), s. 475–493.
Google Scholar

Crossley, S.A., Skalicky, S., Dascalu, M. 2019. Moving beyond classic readability formulas: New methods and new models. Journal of Research in Reading 42 (3–4), s. 541–561.
Google Scholar

Czerepowicka, M. 2016. Możliwości zastosowania narzędzia do pomiaru zrozumiałości tekstu Jasnopis w praktyce szkolnej. Prace Językoznawcze 18 (4), s. 5–18.
Google Scholar

Dale, E., Chall, J.S. 1949. The concept of readability. Elementary English 26 (1), s. 19–26.
Google Scholar

Dale, E., Tyler, R. 1934. A study of the factors influencing the difficulty of reading materials for adults of limited reading ability. Library Quarterly 4, s. 384–412.
Google Scholar

Davison, A., Kantor, R. 1982. On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly 17, s. 187–209.
Google Scholar

De Belder, J., Moens, M.-F. 2010. Text simplification for children. W: Proceedings of the SIGIR Workshop on Accessible Search Systems, red. P. Serdyukov, D. Hiemstra, I. Ruthven, s. 19–26. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Google Scholar

Dębowski, Ł. i in. 2015. Jasnopis – a program to compute readability of texts in Polish based on psycholinguistic research. Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Science, s. 51–61.
Google Scholar

Dell’Orletta, F., Montemagni, S., Venturi, G. 2011. Read-it: Assessing readability of Italian texts with a view to text simplification. W: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies, red. N. Alm, s. 73–83. Edinburgh: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Domagała, M. 2022. Jakim językiem mówią politycy? Analiza poziomu czytelności exposé z wykorzystaniem Jasnopisu. Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Językoznawcza 29 (2), s. 45–60.
Google Scholar

DuBay, W. 2004. The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information.
Google Scholar

Duffy, T.M., Kabance, P. 1982. Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology 74 (5), s. 733–748. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.733
Google Scholar

Evans, R., Orasan, C., Dornescu, I. 2014. An evaluation of syntactic simplification rules for people with autism. W: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Predicting and Improving Text Readability for Target Reader Populations (PITR), red. S. Williams, A. Siddharthan, A. Nenkova, s. 131–140. Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

François, T. 2015. When readability meets computational linguistics: a new paradigm in readability. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée (2), s. 79–97.
Google Scholar

François, T., Fairon, C. 2012. An “AI readability” formula for French as a foreign language. W: Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, red. J. Tsujii, J. Henderson, M. Paşca, s. 466–477. Jeju Island: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Gąsiorek, K. 2013. Ocena komunikatywności tekstu w wybranych podręcznikach do języka polskiego (dla klas IV–VI szkoły podstawowej Wydawnictwa Rożak dla klasy I gimnazjum Wydawnictwa Nowa Era). Z Teorii i Praktyki Dydaktycznej Języka Polskiego 22, s. 149–160.
Google Scholar

Gilliland, J. 1972. Readability. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Google Scholar

Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Kulikowich, J.M. 2011. Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher 40, s. 223–234. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11413260.
Google Scholar

Graesser, A. i in. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36, s. 193–202.
Google Scholar

Gray, W.S., Leary, B. 1935. What makes a book readable. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Google Scholar

Guidroz, T. i in. 2025. LLM-based Text Simplification and its Effect on User Comprehension and Cognitive Load. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01980.
Google Scholar

Hadryan, M. 2024. Ogólne warunki ubezpieczenia w świetle prostego języka. Studium przystępności tekstów. Co do Zasady. Studia i Analizy Prawne 27, s. 27–50.
Google Scholar

Hancke, J., Vajjala, S., Meurers, D. 2012. Readability classification for German using lexical, syntactic, and morphological features. W: Proceedings of COLING 2012, red. M. Kay, Ch.Boitet, s. 1063–1080. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
Google Scholar

Harrisson, C. 1980. Readability in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

ISO. 2023. Plain language — Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines (ISO 24495-1:2023). International Organization for Standardization.
Google Scholar

Imperial, J.M. i in. 2025. Universal CEFR: Enabling open multilingual research on language proficiency assessment. W: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, red. Ch. Christodoulopoulos i in., s. 9714–9766. Suzhou: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Janan, D., Wray, D., Pope, M. 2010. Paradigms in readability research. International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3 (17), s. 19–29.
Google Scholar

Jarrett, C., Redish, G. 2019. Readability Formulas: 7 Reasons to Avoid Them and What to Do Instead. UX Matters, 29.07.2019. Online: https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2019/07/readability-formulas-7-reasons-to-avoid-them-and-what-to-do-instead.php [dostęp: 10.12.2025].
Google Scholar

Kamińska-Czubała, B., Langer, B. 2019. Wykorzystanie wskaźników mglistości tekstu i gęstości informacyjnej w ocenie użyteczności podręczników szkolnych. AUPC Studia ad Bibliothecarum Scientiam Pertinentia 17, s. 403–416.
Google Scholar

Kincaid, J.P. i in. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. CNTECHTRA Research Branch Report, s. 8–75.
Google Scholar

Klare, G.R. 1963. The Measurement of Readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Google Scholar

Lau, T.P. 2006. Chinese readability analysis and its applications on the internet. Master’s thesis. Hongkong: The Chinese University of Hongkong.
Google Scholar

Leroy G., Kauchak D., Hogue A. 2016. Effects on Text Simplification: Evaluation of Splitting Up Noun Phrases. Journal of Health Communication 21 (1), s. 18–26. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1131775.
Google Scholar

McLaughlin, G.H. 1969. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12, s. 636–646.
Google Scholar

Meade, C.D., Smith, C.F. 1991. Readability formulas: Cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counseling 17, s. 153–158. DOI: 10.1016/ 0738-3991(91)90017-Y.
Google Scholar

Mitchell, J.V. 1985. The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Google Scholar

Moździerz, T. 2021. Proporcja liczby wyrazów faktycznych i przeciętnych tekstu w kontekście siedmiostopniowej skali trudności jasnopis.pl. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców 28, s. 323–340.
Google Scholar

Mullan, J., Crookes, P.A., Yeatman, H. 2003. Rain, fog, smog and printed educational material. Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research 33 (4), s. 284–286.
Google Scholar

Narayan, S., Gardent, C. 2014. Hybrid simplification using deep semantics and machine translation. W: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, red. K. Toutanova, H. Wu, s. 435–445. Baltimore: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Olsen, L.A., Johnson, R. 1989. Towards a better measure of readability: Explanation of empirical performance results. Word 40 (1–2), s. 223–234.
Google Scholar

Petersen, S.E, Ostendorf, M. 2007. Text simplification for language learners: A corpus analysis. W: Proceedings of Workshop on Speech and Language Technology for (SLaTE) s. 69–72, Farmington: International Speech Communication Association.
Google Scholar

Pichert, J.W., Elam, P. 1985. Readability formulas may mislead you. Patient Education and Counseling 7 (2), s. 181–191. DOI: 10.1016/0738- 3991(85)90008-4.
Google Scholar

Piekot, T. 2024a. Upraszczanie tekstu jako tłumaczenie. W: Między tekstem a kulturą. Z zagadnień interpretacyjnych, red. Aleksandra R. Knapik, Piotr P. Chruszczewski, s. 191–206. San Diego, CA: Æ Academic Publishing.
Google Scholar

Piekot, T. 2024b. Walidacja tekstu prawnego z perspektywy normy ISO w zakresie prostego języka. W: Legal Design Forum. Teksty wybrane, t. 1, s. 65–94.
Google Scholar

Piekot, T., Marek M. 2014. Styl plain language i przystępność języka publicznego jako nowy kierunek w polskiej polityce językowej. Język a Kultura 24, s. 307–324.
Google Scholar

Pisarek, W. 1969. Jak mierzyć zrozumiałość tekstu. Zeszyty Prasoznawcze 4 (42), s. 35–48.
Google Scholar

Pisarek, W. 1975. Retoryka dziennikarska, t. 6. Kraków: Ośrodek Badań Prasoznawczych RSW Prasa–Książka–Ruch.
Google Scholar

Redish, J. 2000. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24 (1), s. 132–137.
Google Scholar

Rello, L., Baeza-Yates, R.A., Saggion, H. 2013. The impact of lexical simplification by verbal paraphrases for people with and without dyslexia. W: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing), red. A. Gelbukh, s. 501–512. Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Google Scholar

Schriver, K.A. 2000. Readability formulas in the new millennium: What's the use?. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24 (3), s. 138–140.
Google Scholar

Schulz von Thun, F., Langer I., Tausch R. 2004. Wyrażać się zrozumiale. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.
Google Scholar

Si, L., Callan, J. 2001. A statistical model for scientific readability. W: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management, red. H. Paques, L. Ling, D. Grossmans, s. 574–576. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Google Scholar

Siddharthan, A., Katsos, N. 2010. Reformulating discourse connectives for non-expert readers. W: Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT), red. R.M. Kaplan, s. 1002–1010. Stroudsburg, PA:
Google Scholar

Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Siddharthan, A. 2002. An architecture for a text simplification system. W: Proceedings of the Language Engineering Conference (LEC), s. 64–71. Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Google Scholar

Solnyshkina, M., Ivanov, V., Solovyev, V. 2018. Readability Formula for Russian Texts: A Modified Version. W: Advances in Computational Intelligence. MICAI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, t. 11289, red. I. Batyrshin i in., s. 132–145. Cham: Springer.
Google Scholar

Stenner, A.J. i in. 1988. The Lexile Framework. Durham, NC: Metametrics.
Google Scholar

Tanaka, S. i in. 2013. Estimating content concreteness for finding comprehensible documents. W: Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (WSDM '13), red. S. Leonardi i in., s. 475–484. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Google Scholar

Velleman, E., van der Geest, T. 2014. Online test tool to determine the CEFR reading comprehension level of text. Procedia Computer Science 27, s. 350–358.
Google Scholar

vor der Brück, T., Hartrumpf, S. 2007. A semantically oriented readability checker for German. W: Proceedings of the 3rd Language Technology Conference, red. B.R. Chakravarthi i in., s. 270–274. Shoumen: INCOMA Ltd.
Google Scholar

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative 2021. Wytyczne dla dostępności treści internetowych (WCAG 2.1). Online: https://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG21-pl/ [dostęp: 10.12.2025].
Google Scholar

Walkiewicz, A., Kunachowicz, H. 2013. Czytelność informacji w oznakowaniu produktów spożywczych. Przemysł Spożywczy 67 (10), s. 16–18.
Google Scholar

Wang, L.-W. i in. 2013. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations. Research in Social Administrative Pharmacy 9 (5), s. 503–516.
Google Scholar

Watanabe, W.M. i in. 2009. Facilita: reading assistance for low-literacy readers. W: SIGDOC '09: Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communication, red. A. Protopsaltis i in., s. 29–36. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Google Scholar

Wubben, S., van den Bosch, A., Krahmer, E. 2012. Sentence simplification by monolingual machine translation. W: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), red. H. Li i in., s. 1015–1024. Jeju Island: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Zamanian, M., Heydari, P. 2012. Readability of Texts: State of the Art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (1), s. 43–53.
Google Scholar

Zarcadoolas, C. 2011. The simplicity complex: Exploring simplified health messages in a complex world. Health Promotion International 26 (3), s. 338–350. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/daq075.
Google Scholar

Zhou, S., Jeong, H., Green, P.A. 2017. How consistent are the best-known readability equations in estimating the readability of design standards?. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 60 (1), s. 97–111.
Google Scholar