Lexile

The Lexile framework for reading is made up of Lexile reader measures and Lexile text measures, both of which are put on the Lexile scale.

Lexile framework was founded in 1989 by MetaMetrics Stenner and Malbert Smith Funding for developing a better measurement system for reading and writing was provided by the National Institutes of Health through the Small Business Innovation Research grant program. Over the 12-year period from 1984 through 1996, Stenner and Smith received a total of five grants on measurement of literacy.[13][14] Development of the Lexile framework was fueled by conversations and comments from John B. Carroll (UNC-Chapel Hill) and Benjamin Wright (University of Chicago), and with mathematical and psychometrical assistance from Donald S. Burdick, associate professor emeritus of Statistical Science, Duke University and Stenner founded Metrametrics in 1997.[13]

The measurement ideas embedded in the Lexile framework can be found in two 1982–83 articles by Stenner and Smith.[15][16] when they participated in the evaluation of Head Start, comparing different programs from across the country that used different outcome measures.[13]

In Mesmer's Tools for Matching Readers to Texts: Research Based Practices, she stated that the Lexile Framework for Reading was valid, reliable, and had "excellent psychometric properties."[17]

Mesmer mentioned Walpole,[18] and details a study which used Lexile to match 47 second-grade readers to text books. The study found that Lexile was successful at matching students to texts with respect to reading accuracy (93%), but not at matching readers to texts that they could read at an acceptable rate: "Without support, either in the form of fluency modeling or repeated reading, these texts would be too difficult for these students to read productively on their own."[18]

In 2002, the Lexile framework was evaluated by Dale Carlson. The independent consultant found that the Lexile framework had a "well-delineated theoretical foundation."[19] Both Carlson and Mesmer have remarked on the positive and unique characteristic of having both the student and text on the same scale.[17][19]

In 2001, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) formally reviewed Lexile measures. The report acknowledged the science behind Lexile measures: “The panel affirmed the value of both sentence length and word frequency as overall measures of semantic and syntactic complexity....”[5] Additionally, according to one panel member, the Lexile Framework appears “…exceptional in the psychometric care with which it has been developed; the extent of its formal validation with different populations of texts, tests, and children; in its automation; and in its developers’ continual quest to improve it.” However, the report also identified a number of issues and the different authors identified a range of concerns, such as the exclusion of factors such as reader knowledge, motivation and interest: "The notion of purpose in reading is excluded in the Lexile Framework. This is a serious oversight because of the dramatic effects that purpose can have on reading."[5]

Stephen Krashen, educational researcher in language acquisition and professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, raised serious concerns with the Lexile rating system in his article, "The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful."[20] Krashen argues that a reading difficulty rating system limits children's choices and steers them away from reading books in which they may be interested.

Furthermore, like most reading formulas, the formula used to determine a book's Lexile level can often lead to a flawed rating. For example, The Library Mouse, by Daniel Kirk, is a 32-page children's picture book rated by Amazon.com as "for ages 4-8" and has a Lexile score of 830. However, Stephenie Meyer's 498-page, young adult novel Twilight only garners a Lexile score of 720. Similarly, Beverly Cleary's Ramona Quimby, Age 8, has a Lexile score of 860, while Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park only has a score of 710.[21]

Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Professor of Educational Psychology at University of California, Berkeley, noted in her study, "Interpreting Lexiles in Online Contexts and with Informational Texts", "The variability across individual parts of texts can be extensive. Within a single chapter of Pride and Prejudice, for example, 125-word excerpts of text (the unit of assessments used to obtain students' Lexile levels) that were pulled from every 1,000 words had Lexiles that ranged from 670 to 1310, with an average of 952. The range of 640 on the LS [Lexile Scale] represents the span from third grade to college."[22]

Hiebert also demonstrated that slight changes in punctuation, such as changing commas to periods, resulted in "significant reclassification on the LS [Lexile scale].[22]

Mesmer lists the cost of using the Lexile inventory tools as one of the disadvantages of using the system.[17]

Lexile measures are cited in the US Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts to provide text complexity grade and corresponding Lexile ranges. These grade and Lexile ranges are used to help determine at what text complexity level students should be reading to help ensure students are prepared for the reading demands of college and careers.[1] However, this also notes that quantitative methods, including Lexile scores, often underestimate the challenges posed by complex narrative fiction which might use relatively simple prose. The Core standards note that until quantitative methods are able to take into account the factors that might make such texts challenging, preference should be given to qualitative measures of text complexity when evaluating narrative fiction intended for students in grade 6 and over.[1]

More examples are available here.[23]

As of 2010, over 40 reading assessments and programs report Lexile measures, including many popular instruments from Scholastic, Pearson, CTB/McGraw-Hill and Riverside Publishing, as well as a growing number of year-end state assessments.[24]