Search for: All records

Research has revealed benefits and interest among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) adults in reading-assistance tools powered by Automatic Text Simplification (ATS), a technology whose development benefits from evaluations by specific user groups. While prior work has provided guidance for evaluating text complexity among DHH adults, researchers lack guidance for evaluating the fluency of automatically simplified texts, which may contain errors from the simplification process. Thus, we conduct methodological research on the effectiveness of metrics (including reading speed; comprehension questions; and subjective judgements of understandability, readability, grammaticality, and system performance) for evaluating texts controlled to be at different levels of fluency, when measured among DHH participants at different literacy levels. Reading speed and grammaticality judgements effectively distinguished fluency levels among participants across literacy levels. Readability and understandability judgements, however, only worked among participants with higher literacy. Our findings provide methodological guidance for designing ATS evaluations with DHH participants. 

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.