Why Is the Read Text Option Important to the Blind Individuals?

Optom Vis Sci. 2019 May; 96(5): 354–361.

The Affect of Presentation Mode and Engineering on Reading Comprehension among Bullheaded and Sighted Individuals

Natalie N. Stepien-Bernabe, BA,^{1, 2*} Daisy Lei, BA,³ Amanda McKerracher, PhD,^{iv, v} and Deborah Orel-Bixler, OD, PhD, FAAO¹

Natalie North. Stepien-Bernabe

¹Vision Science Program, School of Optometry, Academy of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California

^twoThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, California

Daisy Lei

³Section of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania

Amanda McKerracher

⁴Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada

⁵California Schoolhouse for the Bullheaded, Fremont, California *ude.yelekreb@neipetsn

Deborah Orel-Bixler

ⁱVision Science Program, School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Received 2018 Jun xviii; Accepted 2019 Jan 20.

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE

Technological advancements accept made distributing reading materials in audio formats more common. Investigating how presentation style impacts comprehension amidst sighted and blind individuals will inform the distribution of information to enhance comprehension.

PURPOSE

The aims were (1) to investigate the hypothesis that reading comprehension is enhanced by increased physical appointment and cognitive effort through text or braille and (2) to explore how assistive technology impacts comprehension for blind individuals.

METHODS

In a within-subjects design, 31 sighted and 34 bullheaded participants read and listened to scientific passages and verbally answered complimentary-response questions almost what they read and heard. For sighted participants, passages were presented in text and human vocalisation actor recordings. For blind participants, passages were presented with hard-copy braille, a refreshable braille brandish, vocalism actor recordings, and a screen reader.

RESULTS

Comprehension scores were analyzed using mixed-effects regression and pairwise comparisons on the estimated marginal means. In study one, the comprehension departure between text or hard-copy braille and the phonation histrion formats was assessed to address the first aim. Sighted participants had better comprehension with text (mean, 74.eight%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 70.5 to 79.1%) than with a vocalism role player (mean, 69.7%; 95% CI, 65.4 to 74.0%; P = .02), and blind participants had superior comprehension with difficult-copy braille (mean, lxx.iv%; 95% CI, 63.3 to 77.5%) than with a voice actor (hateful, 61.ix%; 95% CI, 54.vii to 69.0%; P = .03). In study 2, the comprehension differences among blind participants between the four formats were investigated to accost the second aim. Comprehension was improve with hard-copy braille (mean, lxx.half dozen%; 95% CI, 63.4 to 77.7%) than with a screen reader (mean, 60.seven%; 95% CI, 53.5 to 67.9%; P = .02) and better with a braille brandish (hateful, 69.7%; 95% CI, 62.v to 76.9%) than with a screen reader (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Study 1 supports the hypothesis that more physically engaging tasks enhance comprehension, and written report 2 suggests that listening to scientific materials using a synthesized vocalism may reduce comprehension ability compared with hard-copy braille and braille displays.

Engineering science is advancing apace, increasing the distribution of information in electronic rather than hard-copy formats. Consequently, electronic materials are condign increasingly prevalent in educational settings. For example, many textbooks are available equally audiobooks.¹ Although providing educational materials in auditory rather than text formats may be more than economical and convenient, it may not support maximal comprehension. Several studies have shown that reading text generates better comprehension and retentivity of data than listening to sound.^2–v This result is more pronounced with difficult material^two and among older children.³ Varao Sousa et al.⁵ proposed that the increased cognitive endeavour and physical appointment involved in actively reading text compared with passively listening to audio may explain this consequence. Indeed, research has demonstrated decreased cocky-reported heed wandering during more than active tasks such as silent and oral reading compared with listening.^v–eight

Because blind braille readers read through a different modality (i.eastward., bear on), they provide an interesting subpopulation through which to explore the function of presentation modality for text comprehension. For several decades, researchers have explored the relative comprehension of information when it is presented in braille versus auditory formats. The findings to date have been inconsistent (Table ​ 1). This inconsistency is largely due to varying parameters and methodologies, which include participant age,^nine type and difficulty of reading textile,¹⁰ amount of do,¹³ audio speed,^x–thirteen type of comprehension assessment¹³ and questions,¹⁴ and experimental pattern. All studies that found equivalent comprehension for braille and auditory formats used multiple-choice tests to evaluate comprehension and used a between-subjects design. Multiple-pick tests, however, probe recognition of correct answers rather than recall, potentially simplifying the comprehension exercise.¹⁵ Furthermore, using a between-subjects design to assess comprehension across unlike presentation modes is problematic, as participants have different baseline comprehension levels and varying degrees of experience. Thus, the groups existence compared are nonhomogenous in ways other than material format, which may significantly confound the results. These confounds necessitate a reinvestigation of this research question that uses a controlled, within-subjects design, which is addressed by the present study.

Table 1

Comparison of studies that assessed braille and audio comprehension

Although prior enquiry has investigated how comprehension is impacted past reading hard-copy braille compared with listening to compressed speech and/or audiobooks,^9–13 technological advancements in the intervening years have augmented these with two boosted options: refreshable braille displays and screen reading software. Refreshable braille displays are devices that connect to a computer via a USB port and interpret text presented on a computer into braille 1 line at a time, making braille access more convenient and transportable. Screen reading software uses a synthesized voice and keyboard commands to read information presented on a computer screen. Although the synthesized vox quality and spoken communication rate have improved from compressed spoken communication,^9,10,12,13 problems persist with word pronunciation and intonation. The nowadays study is the first to exam comprehension across 4 presentation modes: difficult-re-create braille, braille display, voice actor, and screen reader. This comparison will assist in understanding how to best back up reading comprehension among individuals who are bullheaded, a group already impacted by low high schoolhouse and college graduation rates and underemployment.^16,17 It will as well elucidate how effective braille is for processing reading materials compared with two audio-based technologies.

In summary, the present study has four aims:

1. To replicate the previous finding that actively reading text supports better comprehension compared with passively listening amidst sighted individuals^5–eight using a novel comprehension assessment

2. To right methodological flaws in extant inquiry on braille and sound comprehension amid bullheaded individuals

3. To incorporate modern and popular assistive technologies to access reading materials

4. To explore the hypothesis that tasks requiring greater cerebral effort and physical appointment improve comprehension

To address each of these aims, nosotros analyzed the findings in ii dissimilar studies. The get-go study (study one) explored whether agile reading modes (text or braille) generate better comprehension than do passive reading modes (listening to a voice actor) among sighted and blind individuals or whether the comprehension advantage from reading text compared with listening is domain specific to vision. The second report (study ii) investigated how currently used assistive engineering may touch the reading comprehension of braille readers. This project used a within-subjects design, and a novel free-response comprehension assessment was developed to investigate comprehension among blind and sighted individuals. To our knowledge, this is the beginning project that uses the same comprehension assessment to make comparisons betwixt blind and sighted participants.

HYPOTHESES

Study ane

We hypothesized that for sighted individuals text would be superior to auditory comprehension, supporting and replicating previous research.^2–5 If reading text supports comprehension due to effortful processing, then bullheaded individuals should perform meliorate in the braille compared with the auditory condition, equally reading braille is more physically engaging and cognitively effortful than passively listening.¹⁸ If, yet, one of the alternate results—equivalent braille and auditory comprehension or better auditory comprehension—is found for blind participants, then reading text may promote improve comprehension among the sighted owing to a domain-specific belongings of vision.

Report two

We hypothesized that comprehension among bullheaded individuals would exist better when reading passages using hard-re-create braille or a braille brandish compared with auditory formats. This finding would support the link between better comprehension and more than cognitively effortful and physically engaging tasks. Alternating findings include equivalent comprehension in all iv presentation modes or an advantage for listening, which could be explained by the superior auditory memory of blind individuals.¹⁹

An interesting consideration is the potential comprehension departure between the two braille (difficult-re-create and braille display) and two audio (voice actor and screen reader) formats. We expected that using a braille display would lead to poorer comprehension relative to hard-copy braille because of more difficult spatial navigation, as braille displays require readers to regress one line at a time and to rely on their spatial memory to clarify information. We likewise hypothesized that individuals would comprehend ameliorate when listening to a vocalization actor compared with a screen reader because of the synthesized voice's poorer speech quality.

METHODS

Participants

30-four blind (19 to 71 years; median, 45 years) and 31 sighted (xviii to 64 years; median, 22 years) individuals participated. The Smith-Kettlewell Middle Research Institute and University of California, Berkeley, institutional review boards canonical the experimental procedures, and all individuals provided informed written consent before their participation. Furthermore, this research followed the tenets of the Proclamation of Helsinki.

All participants were native English speakers, received at least a high school diploma, had normal hearing, and did non accept whatever additional disabilities. All blind participants were fluent contracted braille readers. Some bullheaded participants had no visual role, some could come across lite and/or light and shadow direction, and a few could detect the presence of large forms (Table ​ 2).

TABLE 2

Participant information

MATERIALS

Pre-experiment Survey

Participants completed a pre-experiment survey that included questions about their age, visual impairment (if applicative), field of study, instruction level, and amount of feel reading text/braille and listening to audio. The amount of experience reading versus listening was calculated by asking participants how many hours per calendar week they appoint in these activities for school/work and leisure.

Isolated Word Reading

Each participant completed the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third Edition isolated give-and-take reading tests: word reading and pseudoword decoding.²⁰ Although these tests have been used to assess the reading skills of sighted individuals, we transcribed all materials in Unified English Braille for blind participants. Both tests begin with short, unproblematic words and progress to longer, more complicated words. Each detail was scored for correct verbal pronunciation by comparing recorded participant responses with a recorded respond key. These reading tests were used to ostend text and braille reading skills. Participants with scores below the 10th percentile for their age on these tests were excluded from final data assay. Two of the 34 bullheaded and none of the sighted participants were excluded based on this criterion.

Reading and Listening Cloth

Two kinds of passages were used: do and experimental. There were seven practice passages, which were short, literary stories acquired from the Gray Oral Reading Fluency Exam, Fifth Edition.²¹ These practice passages were written at a fourth- to 5th-class reading level, according to the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test.²²

For the experimental passages, permission from Pearson publishing was obtained to apply iv different excerpts from their loftier-school Prentice Hall Biology eTextbook.²³ Scientific passages were selected, as bullheaded individuals are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines,²⁴ emphasizing the importance of enhancing comprehension of cloth in a scientific discipline, technology, engineering, and mathematics field. These passages were between 130 and 141 words. Co-ordinate to the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test,²² all passages were at a twelfth-grade reading level. The passage topics included zones of the ocean (passage A), relative dating of fossils (passage B), how viruses produce disease (passage C), and invertebrate body symmetry (passage D). The experimenters developed viii complimentary-response questions per experimental passage (32 questions total). Half were "literal" questions, which had answers stated verbatim in the passage, and half were "inferential" questions, which had responses that required using passage information to infer answers that were not explicitly stated.

Reading and Listening Devices

For sighted participants, passages were presented in 2 different formats: text and audio. For the text format, passages were typed and printed on a viii.5 × 11-inch newspaper (12-point, Times New Roman font). For the audio format, a professionally trained male person phonation actor was recorded reading each passage and all comprehension questions in a soundproof room at the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute. These recordings were played aloud for participants during the study.

For bullheaded individuals, passages were presented in four different formats: (1) hard-copy braille (Unified English Braille, embossed on a eleven × xi.v-inch paper), (two) refreshable braille display (Brailliant BI 32, HumanWare, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland), (three) vocalisation actor, and (iv) screen reader (NonVisual Desktop Access, NV Admission, Australia). The NonVisual Desktop Access screen reader was used with the eloquence and vocalizer expressive add-on, which improved the vocalism clarity.

Procedure

All individuals gave written consent to participate and be recorded. First, they verbally completed the pre-experiment survey. A video photographic camera recorded their responses and was focused on participants' hands only.

Then, all participants were administered the Wechsler Individual Accomplishment Exam—Third Edition tests, and upon completion, the experimenter read the written report instructions aloud. The experimental design was within-subjects; that is, all individuals completed all presentation way weather for their participant group. For sighted participants, passages were presented in text and in audio (voice histrion) formats. For blind participants, each of the four experimental passages was presented in one of the 4 presentation modes. The presentation mode–experimental passage pairings and the presentation mode conditions were pseudorandomized using a Latin foursquare design and counterbalanced across participants. Furthermore, the gild of gratis-response questions for each passage was randomized for each participant.

Practice

Before reading or listening to the experimental passages, participants completed one or two different practice sessions. Two practices were used for the vocalization actor, braille display, and screen reader conditions. The first practice familiarized participants with using relevant technological devices and did not require comprehension of any information in the passage. During this kickoff practise, participants selected their preferred speech rate for the audio weather condition. In all presentation way weather condition, participants were not timed and could make regressions, or go back in the text or audio, to analyze data. Allowing for regressions and speech rate adjustments fake realistic reading, thereby enhancing the generalizability and ecological validity of the findings. For audio weather, regressions were made using a key press on a keyboard.

The 2d practice session familiarized participants with the experimental procedure. This was the but practice for the text and difficult-re-create braille conditions because no technological preparation was required. Participants silently read or listened to the passage and answered ii free-response questions, which were previously recorded by the voice actor and were played aloud. Participants were as well given the questions in text or braille. Once the questions were played, participants could no longer render to the passage. Responses were given verbally. Participants said the word "next" to betoken that they wanted to progress to the adjacent question.

Experiment

Afterwards each practice, participants completed the experimental conditions, during which they silently read or listened to the scientific passages for comprehension. They were instructed to notify the experimenter once they finished. So, the vox player recordings of eight unlike free-response questions were played aloud. Participants were given the questions in text or braille, and once the questions were played, they could no longer return to the passage. Participants verbally responded and said "next" to progress to the next question.

Comprehension Scoring

Verbal responses were transcribed and scored for accuracy using Gradescope (Gradescope Inc., Berkeley, CA), a tool that allows for online grading.²⁵ In Gradescope, the grading rubric is continuously visible, lending forcefulness to interrater reliability. Ii of the authors independently graded all responses. Their scores were compared to summate interrater reliability using the Cohen κ value,²⁶ which measures interrater agreement while considering the possibility of the agreement occurring by chance.²⁷ For sighted participants' scores, κ = 0.984, and for blind participants' scores, κ = 0.949, indicating that, after subtracting out agreement due to chance, the ii raters agreed approximately 98.four and 94.9% of the time for sighted and blind participants' scores, respectively; therefore, at that place is high interrater agreement.

Assessment Tool Analysis

Because a novel assessment tool was created, it was of import to confirm that the questions accurately assess comprehension. Scores were analyzed using Rasch model estimation with the "CRASCH" bundle in R 3.4.four.^28,29 Scores predicted past the Rasch model were compared with the actual scores from the blind and sighted participants, separately, yielding an infit mean square statistic for each detail that reflects the amount of randomness of the cess tool. Xx-iv of the original 32 items had acceptable infit values^30,31 for both bullheaded and sighted participants, allowing for comparisons between these two groups, and were used in the following data analyses.

Regression Analysis

The total comprehension score was calculated past summing the scores of each fitted question for a passage and dividing by the full possible points for that passage. Full scores were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression with the lme4 bundle in R iii.four.iv.^29,32 The variance associated with random factors was controlled for by using linear mixed-furnishings regression analysis equally opposed to repeated-measures analysis of variance.^33,34 Considering participants had different comprehension abilities, their scores were non independent across presentation modes, thereby rendering each participant'due south responses interdependent.³⁵ This nonindependence was resolved by including a random upshot of participant in all regression models, which assumed a different "baseline" comprehension level for each participant.³⁵

All analyses started with a naught model that included full score equally the dependent variable and participant equally the random intercept effect. Stock-still effects were incrementally added to investigate whether the model fit was improved by using χ² tests on the log-likelihood values to compare the different models. The last model was selected if information technology revealed a significant P value and minimized the Akaike information criterion value. The stock-still effects tested in all models include the following: presentation way, passage topic, participant age, presentation way and passage topic interaction, education level, principal discipline, experience using text/braille and audio, time duration of each condition, and, if applicative, the age at which the participant learned how to read braille (i.eastward., braille age) and visual impairment onset age.

Estimated marginal means, or the mean response for each gene adjusted for the other variables in the model, were computed for all models in this study using the "emmeans" packet in R 3.4.iv.^29,36 The 95% confidence intervals and differences betwixt weather were computed using these values, and the differences were assessed using a Bonferroni confidence level adjustment and a Holm P adjustment method for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Written report i

Sighted Participants

The goal of this assay was to investigate whether the findings replicate previous research^5–8 using our complimentary-response comprehension cess tool. For sighted participants, the fixed effects used in the terminal model included presentation manner (F _1,93 = 5.9, P = .02), passage topic (F _three,93 = 7.2, P < .001), and historic period (F _1,31 = 8.five, P = .007), along with a random intercept of participant. The model met all linear mixed-furnishings regression assumptions. Passage topic was controlled to assess the differences in total score betwixt presentation modes. The average full score for sighted participants was significantly ameliorate with the text (hateful, 74.8%; 95% conviction interval, seventy.v to 79.1%) compared with voice player format (mean, 69.vii%; 95% confidence interval, 65.4 to 74.0%; P = .02; Fig. ​ ane, left). This result replicates what has been found in previous research.^2–5

Impact of presentation mode on comprehension for sighted participants and blind participants. Asterisks announce significant differences. Error confined represent the SEs of the estimated marginal ways (sighted: SEM, 1.9; bullheaded: SEM, 3.1).

Blind Participants

The difference in average comprehension between but the hard-re-create braille and vocalisation role player formats was assessed, equally these two conditions are most analogous to the text and vox actor conditions used for the sighted participant analysis described previously. The aim was to see whether a similar finding exists among blind participants. For blind participants, in addition to the random intercept of participant, the fixed effects included in the concluding model were every bit follows: presentation manner (F _1,32 = five.5, P = .03), braille age (F _1,32 = 6.3, P = .02), and participant age (F _one,32 = 13.one, P < .001). This model met all linear mixed-effects regression assumptions.

Average comprehension was significantly better with difficult-copy braille (mean, seventy.iv%; 95% conviction interval, 63.3 to 77.five%) compared with vocalism actor format (hateful, 61.9%; 95% confidence interval, 54.7 to 69.0%; P = .03; Fig. ​ 1, right). Furthermore, there was a stronger negative correlation between participant age and total score (r = −0.400) than between braille age and total score (r = −0.254).

Study 1 Summary

On average, sighted and bullheaded participants comprehended the scientific passages better when they were presented in text or braille compared with when a voice thespian read them aloud.

Written report 2

In this study, the touch of four presentation modes (hard-copy braille, braille display, voice actor, screen reader) on comprehension amongst blind participants was investigated.

As in the bullheaded participant regression model in study 1, the concluding model had a random intercept issue of participant and the following stock-still effects: participant historic period (F _one,32 = 17.8, P < .0001), presentation way (F _iii,96 = 5.1, P = .002), passage topic (F _3,96 = four.3, P = .007), interaction between presentation mode and passage topic (F _9,74.9 = 2.6, P = .01), and braille age (F _1,32 = 4.3, P = .05). This model met all linear mixed-effects regression assumptions.

Differences in total score between presentation modes were assessed, controlling for passage topic. Average total score was significantly better with hard-copy braille (hateful, 70.6%; 95% confidence interval, 0.634 to 0.777) than with a screen reader (mean, 60.7%; 95% confidence interval, 53.5 to 67.9%; P = .02) and better with the braille display (hateful, 69.7%; 95% confidence interval, 62.v to 76.9%) than with a screen reader (P = .04; Fig. ​ 2). In addition, the average comprehension power in the vox thespian condition (mean, 62.5%; 95% confidence interval, 55.3 to 69.6%) was not significantly different from the difficult-re-create braille (P = .10) or the braille display (P = .07) conditions. Then, presentation mode was held constant to examine differences in comprehension between passages. A significantly greater average comprehension score was constitute for passage C (mean, 70.3%; 95% confidence interval, 63.1 to 77.4%) compared with D (mean, 60.one%; 95% conviction interval, 52.nine to 67.2%; P = .02).

Effect of four dissimilar presentation modes on comprehension for bullheaded participants. Asterisks indicate significant differences. Error bars represent the SEs of the estimated marginal ways (SEM, 2.8 for all modes).

Although insufficient observations existed in each passage–presentation mode pair to statistically clarify the interaction, the trends in the data suggest that average braille comprehension was improve than average auditory comprehension for passages A, B, and D. In that location existed no comprehension differences, however, between presentation formats for passage C. This result probable occurred because the topic covered by this passage was familiar to the participants and therefore too simple. Taken together, these findings highlight the need to consider the passage topic and difficulty level when investigating the bear upon of presentation style on comprehension in the time to come.

DISCUSSION

This project investigated how differences in presentation mode influence comprehension of scientific material. In study one, regression analyses revealed that, for sighted and blind individuals, reading scientific passages in text and difficult-copy braille, respectively, generated better comprehension on boilerplate compared with listening to a vocalisation player. This result supports the hypothesis that increasing task effort and physical appointment enhances comprehension.^5–viii

The findings from study 2 with only blind individuals, however, complicated this interpretation. That is, if superior comprehension is supported by more than physically engaging and cognitively effortful tasks, and so both braille conditions (difficult-copy and braille brandish) should have yielded higher comprehension scores compared with both audio conditions. Although the results revealed that the boilerplate comprehension when listening to the voice actor was more than similar to that when listening to a screen reader than that when using either braille format, the deviation between each braille condition and the voice role player condition was not statistically significant; this was unexpected, given the results from report one. To explore this further, the effect sizes were calculated for these differences using a formula for Cohen d for mixed-effects models.³⁷ If the effect sizes are low (i.e., d = 0.2³⁸), then this supports the lack of significant comprehension divergence between each braille and the voice actor condition.

The observed effect size betwixt difficult-copy braille and voice actor conditions was d = 0.561, and that between the braille display and voice thespian conditions was d = 0.501. Because these are considered medium outcome sizes,³⁸ a possibility is that—despite attempting to control for extraneous factors and using a sample size calculated a priori for sufficient power—the number of participants tested was not adequate for the precision required to make the comprehension difference statistically significant.

Furthermore, the lack of significant difference betwixt the difficult-copy braille and voice histrion weather in study two could possibly be explained by the significant interaction between passage topic and presentation mode, which was not significant in study 1. Future research should further examine the extent to which the impact of presentation mode on comprehension depends on passage topic. Although comprehension amidst blind participants may not necessarily be explained past increased physical engagement, the findings from written report 2 emphasize the need to continue producing scientific materials in braille, withal technological advancements that nowadays information in audio. The results besides suggest that the poor wording offered by synthesized spoken communication may impair comprehension of nonfiction passages.

Although the findings presented hither highlight the benefit of using braille formats to access reading materials, they exercise not recommend discounting the apply of audio-based assistive technology in full general. That is, the current results involving blind individuals peculiarly apply to fluent braille readers' comprehension of loftier-schoolhouse biological science passages using iv unlike presentation modes. They do not imply that reading comprehension is impaired by using audio-based assistive technology. Indeed, it may be challenging for individuals who become bullheaded later in life to learn braille, then they depend heavily on auditory ways of accessing reading materials. In that location be many other sound-based assistive technologies not tested here that may yield dissimilar results with the present experimental methodology.

In summary, the results from these studies aim to provide data on the relationship between altering the way reading materials are presented and comprehension; they are not meant to serve equally a strict guideline for informing individuals how to access their reading materials, as this is ultimately at the discretion of the reader. In improver, the findings suggest that braille should non be replaced only rather supplemented by audio-based assistive engineering science in the education organization.

Novel Contributions to Educational activity

A novel comprehension assessment was adult to direct compare the results from blind and sighted individuals. This comparison lends insight into the mechanism of comprehension past addressing whether text comprehension is domain specific to vision or due to the increased effort hypothesis. If the superiority in comprehension is due to the latter, then blind participants' comprehension should exist better when textile is presented in braille than in audio.

These studies also incorporated widely used assistive engineering. Because these devices tend to exist more user-friendly, investigating the tradeoff between comprehension and accessibility is essential. In addition, these studies allowed for personalized adjustments to settings and for making regressions. Previous research has not allowed for regressions during sound weather condition, although individuals made regressions during text/braille conditions. Because participants could utilise their preferred settings and make regressions, these studies represented a more realistic setting, thereby enhancing the applicability of the results to education.

These studies used a inside-subjects blueprint, producing more substantive results compared with a between-subjects design, because the comprehension differences betwixt presentation modes were non biased because of varying preferences and/or experience with the different modes and devices. Past using a within-subjects design, each participant acted as his or her own "command," as preference and experience level were held abiding beyond presentation modes. The results presented hither therefore are due to differences betwixt conditions.

Challenges of Creating Assessments

Many challenges come with developing an cess tool that accurately assesses comprehension. To control for passage difficulty, the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test²² was performed on each passage before experimentation. However, there still existed significant differences in comprehension between passage topics for blind and sighted individuals. Ane way to preclude these effects a priori is by collecting sufficient pilot data; however, at least 30 of bullheaded and sighted participants each were needed to develop fit statistics for the comprehension questions via Rasch modeling, and it was difficult to recruit fluent braille readers. This difficulty express our capacity to test enough fluent braille readers for pilot data. Despite this shortcoming, this study was the first of its kind to take appropriate statistical measures to analyze questions that accurately measured comprehension for each group. Interestingly, fit statistics for blind and sighted individuals were different, highlighting the need to consider differences in participant groups when developing assessment tools.

Footnotes

Funding/Back up: National Institute on Disability, Contained Living, and Rehabilitation Enquiry (90RE5024-02-00; awarded to Dr. John Brabyn, executive director, Smith-Kettlewell Middle Research Institute, San Francisco, CA; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily stand for the official views of the funding agency); National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE 1752814; to NNS-B); and Minnie F. Turner Memorial Fund for Impaired Vision Research (to NNS-B).

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have reported a financial disharmonize of interest.

Contributed by

Author Contributions and Acknowledgments: Conceptualization: NNS-B, DL, AM; Data Curation: NNS-B, DL; Formal Analysis: NNS-B, AM; Investigation: NNS-B, DL; Methodology: NNS-B, DL, AM; Projection Administration: NNS-B, DL; Resource: AM, Practise-B; Software: NNS-B, DL; Supervision: NNS-B, AM; Validation: NNS-B; Visualization: NNS-B; Writing – Original Draft: NNS-B; Writing – Review & Editing: NNS-B, DL, AM, Practise-B.

The authors would like to thank the late Dr. Valerie Morash for her scientific rigor and helping develop this enquiry idea. Many thanks to the Smith-Kettlewell Center Research Institute, California School for the Blind, the Vista Centre for the Blind and Visually-Impaired, and the University of California, Berkeley, School of Optometry, for their assistance with recruiting participants and allowing the authors to run studies there.

REFERENCES

2. Carver ME. Listening versus Reading. In: Cantril H, Allport GW, eds. The Psychology of Radio. New York: Harper & Brothers; 1935. [Google Scholar]

3. Caughran AM. The Issue on Language Comprehension of 3 Methods of Presentation [Doctoral Dissertation]. Columbia, MO: The University of Missouri-Columbia; 1953. [Google Scholar]

4. Green R. Remembering Ideas from Text: The Consequence of Modality of Presentation. Br J Educ Psychol 1981;51:83–9. [Google Scholar]

5. Varao Sousa TL, Carriere JS, Smilek D. The Manner Nosotros Come across Reading Cloth Influences how Ofttimes We Listen Wander. Forepart Psychol 2013;4:892. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Forster South, Lavie N. Harnessing the Wandering Mind: The Role of Perceptual Load. Cognition 2009;111:345–55. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Thomson DR, Besner D, Smilek D. In Pursuit of Off-task Thought: Mind Wandering-operation Trade-offs while Reading Aloud and Color Naming. Front Psychol 2013;iv:360. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Smallwood J, McSpadden K, Schooler JW. The Lights Are on but no I's Home: Meta-sensation and the Decoupling of Attention when the Mind Wanders. Psychol Balderdash Rev 2007;14:527–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ix. Lowenfeld B. Braille Talking Book Reading: A Comparative Study. New York: The American Printing Business firm for the Bullheaded, Inc.; 1945. [Google Scholar]

10. Foulke E, Amster CH, Nolan CY, et al. The Comprehension of Rapid Spoken language by the Blind. Except Child 1962;29:134–42. [Google Scholar]

11. Hughes CC. A Comparison of Braille and Compressed Speech every bit Learning Modes for Legally Bullheaded Adults [Doctoral Dissertation]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University; 1979. [Google Scholar]

12. Tuttle DW. A Comparison of Iii Reading Media for the Blind: Braille, Normal Recording and Compressed Speech. Educ Visual Handicap 1972;4:40–four. [Google Scholar]

13. Nolan CY. Reading and Listening in Learning by the Bullheaded. Except Kid 1963;29:313–half-dozen. [Google Scholar]

fourteen. Edmonds CJ, Pring L. Generating Inferences from Written and Spoken Linguistic communication: A Comparison of Children with Visual Impairment and Children with Sight. Br J Dev Psychol 2006;24:337–51. [Google Scholar]

xv. Birenbaum 1000, Tatsuoka KK. Open up-concluded versus Multiple-option Response Formats—It Does Make a Divergence for Diagnostic Purposes. Appl Psychol Measur 1987;11:385–95. [Google Scholar]

sixteen. National Federation of the Blind (NFB). Incomprehension Statistics: Educational Attainment (US); 2018. Available at: https://nfb.org/blindness-statistics. Accessed March 12, 2018.

17. Bell EC, Mino NM. Employment Outcomes for Blind and Visually Impaired Adults. J Blind Innov Res 2015;5. [Google Scholar]

18. Büchel C, Price C, Frackowiak RS, et al. Different Activation Patterns in the Visual Cortex of Late and Congenitally Blind Subjects. Encephalon 1998;121(Pt three):409–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

nineteen. Röder B, Rösler F, Neville HJ. Auditory Retentivity in Congenitally Bullheaded Adults: A Behavioral-electrophysiological Investigation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2001;xi:289–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

twenty. Wechsler D. Wechsler Individual Achievement Exam. 3rd ed San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 2009. [Google Scholar]

21. Wiederholt JL, Bryant BR. Gray Oral Reading Exam—Fifth Edition (GORT-5): Examiner's Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2012. [Google Scholar]

22. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Jr., Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Orlando, FL: Plant for Simulation and Training; 1975;56:1–32. [Google Scholar]

23. Miller KR, Levine JS. Prentice Hall Biology, Student Edition. 2008C. Prentice Hall Online Edition, Pearson Educational activity, Inc. Available at: ocas.pearsonschool.com/ph/cd/0-13-115540-7/. Accessed May 9, 2017.

24. Supalo CA, Isaacson MD, Lombardi MV. Making Hands-on Science Learning Accessible for Students Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision. J Chem Educ 2013;91:195–9. [Google Scholar]

25. Singh A, Karayev S, Gutowski K, et al. Gradescope: A Fast, Flexible, and Fair System for Scalable Assessment of Handwritten Work. Proc ACM 2017:81–8. [Google Scholar]

27. Fleiss JL, Cohen J, Everitt BS. Large Sample Standard Errors of Kappa and Weighted Kappa. Psychol Bull 1969;72:323. [Google Scholar]

28. Arneson A, Freund R, Toyama Y, Wilson M. Construct Mapping with Rasch, CRASCH Packet for R. GitHub Repository; 2015. Available at: github.com/amyarneson/crasch. Accessed March six, 2018.

29. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing: Version 3.4.4 [Computer Program]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. Available at: http://www.R-projection.org/. Accessed March vi, 2018. [Google Scholar]

30. Adams RJ, Khoo ST. Quest. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Education Research; 1996. [Google Scholar]

32. Bates D, Mächler Grand, Bolker B, et al. Plumbing equipment Linear Mixed-effects Models Using Lme4. J Stat Software 2015;67:1–48. [Google Scholar]

33. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. Mixed-effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items. J Memory Lang 2008;59:390–412. [Google Scholar]

34. Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA. Treating Stimuli as a Random Gene in Social Psychology: A New and Comprehensive Solution to a Pervasive but Largely Ignored Problem. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012;103:54–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Winter B. Linear Models and Linear Mixed Effects Models in R with Linguistic Applications; 2013. arXiv preprint:1308.5499. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.5499.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2018.

36. Lenth R, Singmann H, Dearest J, Buerkner P, Herve M. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Ways, AKA Least-squares Means. R Package Version 1.1.3; 2018. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans. Accessed May 4, 2018.

38. Cohen J. Statistical Power Assay for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Bookish; 1988. [Google Scholar]

youngressill.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6493670/

Share this post