Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.4
,
No
.2
,
Jun
e
2
015
, pp
. 45
~53
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
45
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Validation Study of Waray Te
xt Readability Instrument
Vol
t
aire Q. Oyz
o
n
1
, Ju
ven
B
.
C
o
rr
al
es
2
, Wilfredo
M. Estardo, Jr.
2
1
Coll
ege o
f
Arts
& Sc
ien
ces,
Le
yt
e Norm
al
Univ
ersit
y
,
Philipp
i
n
e
s
2
Graduate Scho
ol,
Ley
t
e Norm
al University
, Philippines
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Feb 16, 2015
Rev
i
sed
May 14
, 20
15
Accepte
d May
21 ,
2015
In 2012 the Ley
t
e Normal University
d
e
velop
e
d a computer software—
modelled after the Spache Read
ability
Formula
(1953) made for English—
made to help rank texts that
can is
us
ed b
y
teachers or resear
ch groups on
selecting approp
riate read
ing materi
als to support the DepEd’s
MTB-MLE
program
in Regi
on VIII, in th
e
Philippi
nes. However, “
s
ever
al
experim
e
nts
have alr
ead
y es
t
a
blis
hed th
at ex
i
s
ting readab
ili
t
y
m
eas
ures
in Englis
h canno
t
directly
b
e
used
to compute read
abil
ity
of other languages.” To v
a
lid
ate
the
Waray
Text R
e
adability
Instrum
e
nt (WTR
I)
for
m
ula, 15
stories
wer
e
r
a
ted
b
y
24
randomly selected
teach
er
s from two elem
entar
y
s
c
hools in Tacloban
Cit
y
. The W
T
RI s
o
ftware uses
two factors
in determ
inin
g readabi
l
i
t
y
,
namely
: (
a
) sen
t
ence leng
th
and
(b)
frequen
c
y
of
commonly
occur
r
ing words.
The te
ach
ers
’
ta
s
k
is
to read the
given tex
t
and
rate th
e grad
e le
vel of ea
ch
text b
y
conside
r
ing these three
fact
ors: (1) frequency
of com
m
only
used
words; (2) sentence length
;
and
,
(3) tota
l number
of words. The data gather
ed
was com
p
ared
with the W
T
RI’
s
ratings of the
sam
e
texts. St
ati
s
tical
test
ing
was done
to determine if th
er
e is
a significant differen
ce b
e
tween th
e
teachers’ rating
of the
texts
and the WTR
I’s ratin
g
s. As a result, there was n
o
significant d
i
ffer
e
nce between
th
e softwa
re’s grade level ratings
and th
at o
f
the
tea
c
hers’
.
It
i
m
p
lied th
at
the
W
T
RI’s cal
cula
t
i
on is v
a
lid
.
Keyword:
Assessm
ent
MTBMLE
Tex
t
Readab
ility
V
a
lid
atio
n study
Waray
Text R
e
adability
Instrum
e
nt
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Voltaire Q.
Oy
zon
,
Co
lleg
e
o
f
Arts
&
Scien
ces,
Leyte Norm
al
Uni
v
ersity,
P.
Paterno
St, Taclo
b
a
n
City 6
500
, Ph
ilipp
i
n
e
s
Em
a
il: v
.
o
y
zon@g
m
ail.co
m
1.
INTRODUCTION
A read
ab
ility
alg
o
rith
m
in
read
ab
ility so
ft
ware is
u
s
ed
t
o
h
e
lp
rank
tex
t
s.
Pu
t sim
p
ly
, read
ab
ility
d
e
term
in
es h
o
w easy it is
to
co
m
p
reh
e
n
d
a
tex
t
. Referen
c
e
[1
] estab
lish
e
d
th
at lo
ng
er
sentences a
r
e harde
r
to
read
th
an
sh
ort sen
t
en
ces and
lo
ng
er wo
rds are h
a
rd
er to
co
m
p
reh
e
nd th
an
short o
n
es. Mo
st readab
ility
form
u
l
as calcu
late th
e av
erage len
g
t
h
o
f
senten
ces an
d
th
e av
erag
e nu
m
b
er o
f
syllab
l
es
to
g
i
v
e
a
read
ab
ility
score
.
Readability al
gorithm
s
are highly
accurat
e
m
easures of com
p
rehe
nsion le
vel, but
the ori
g
inal
fo
rm
ul
as were
dev
e
l
o
ped
f
o
r En
gl
i
s
h
,
an
An
gl
o
-
Sa
x
o
n
l
a
ng
ua
ge wi
t
h
m
a
ny
si
ngl
e-sy
l
l
a
bl
e w
o
r
d
s.
In
cont
rast
,
W
a
ra
y
has very
few
si
ngl
e sy
l
l
a
bl
e wor
d
s
.
Al
m
o
st
no no
u
n
s,
ver
b
s, o
r
ad
ject
i
v
e
s
are
m
onosy
l
l
a
bl
i
c
.
Furt
her, W
a
ra
y-W
a
ray has
very
few pre
positions,
in
c
o
m
p
aris
on t
o
the
m
a
ny
m
onosyllabic pre
p
ositions i
n
Eng
lish
.
I
n
shor
t,
W
a
r
a
y is polysyllab
i
c, an
d f
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
r
e, its g
r
amm
a
r is
ag
g
l
u
tin
a
tive.
Prefi
x
es a
nd s
u
ffixes
change
pa
rts of speec
h. Ot
her
parts
of
s
p
eech are
form
ed through a
ffixe
s:
su
m
a
t (tell) --> m
a
g
sumat
(t
e
l
l
i
ng),
m
a
gsu
su
m
a
t
(will tell), su
su
mat
on (tales)
ada (there
) -->
m
a
y
ada
(has/
h
ave),
m
a
gkam
a
y
ada
(let the
r
e
be)
Th
erefo
r
e, stan
d
a
rd
read
ab
il
ity in
d
e
x
lik
e th
e Flesch-Kincaid form
ula
would categorize
W
a
ray
l
a
ng
uage
t
e
xt
s
as m
u
ch m
o
re di
ffi
c
u
l
t
t
o
c
o
m
p
rehen
d
, si
m
p
l
y
beca
use t
h
ey
have m
o
re s
y
l
l
a
bl
es.
Fu
rt
h
e
rm
ore,
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
4
5
– 53
46
syllab
i
ficatio
n is d
i
fferen
t
i
n
W
a
ray th
an in
Eng
lish
.
Vowels are
nev
e
r co
m
b
in
ed
in
to
on
e syllab
l
e (in
Eng
lish
,
"t
o
o
"
is on
e syllab
l
e; in
Waray, "tuod
" is two
syllab
l
es).
The Wa
ray
Rea
d
a
b
ility Fo
rmula
Leyte Norm
al
Un
i
v
ersity m
a
d
e
a
read
ab
ility form
u
l
a tailo
red
fo
r t
h
e
Waray lang
u
a
g
e
:
(a) sen
t
en
ce
len
g
t
h
an
d
(b) freq
u
e
n
c
y of co
mm
o
n
wo
rd
s
d
e
term
in
e read
ab
ilty; sy
llab
l
e
len
g
t
h
is d
i
sreg
ard
e
d
.
Kn
owi
n
g
the
freq
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
wo
rd
s as th
ey
are u
s
ed
i
n
written
and
o
r
al commu
n
i
catio
n
prov
id
ed
t
h
e
b
e
st m
ean
s o
f
in
ferri
ng
t
h
e l
i
k
el
i
h
oo
d
t
h
at
a
w
o
r
d
wo
ul
d
be
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
re
d
by
a
rea
d
er
an
d t
h
us
bec
o
m
e
part
o
f
t
h
at
i
n
di
vi
d
u
al
’s
recep
tiv
e vo
cab
u
l
ary [2
]. Th
es
e criteria are
based
on
res
earch
es b
y
[1
],[3
]-[5
].
In
th
e Ph
ilip
p
i
n
e
s, no
stud
ies an
d
effort h
a
ve b
een
m
a
d
e
i
n
th
e d
e
v
e
lopmen
t o
f
read
abilit
y fo
rm
u
l
a
for the
n
o
n
-
Tag
a
log
lan
g
u
a
g
e
s
un
til th
e
p
a
ssag
e
o
f
M
T
BMLE in
to
a law
20
12
. In
2
012
, Leyte No
rm
al
Un
i
v
ersity, wit
h
th
e h
e
l
p
of Jo
hn
Mark
Fu
llmer o
f
Au
stin
Co
lleg
e
, in
itiated
th
e d
e
v
e
lopmen
t o
f
read
ab
ilit
y
form
u
l
a o
r
, software
for
W
a
ray lan
g
u
a
g
e
[6
]. Ho
wev
e
r, th
is read
ab
ility fo
rm
u
l
a is p
a
ttern
ed
after Sp
ach
e
Read
ab
ility Fo
rm
u
l
a
mad
e
for Eng
lish
.
Th
erefo
r
e, adj
u
stm
e
n
t
s h
a
v
e
to
be
m
a
d
e
to
su
it
th
e id
io
syn
c
rasies o
f
th
e
W
a
ray langu
ag
e.
Th
is
stud
y aim
s
to
v
a
lid
ate th
is
Waray Tex
t
Readab
i
lity In
stru
m
e
n
t
.
Th
is stud
y aims to
inv
e
stig
ate th
e fo
llowing
que
stions:
(a)
What is t
h
e di
ffere
n
ce
betwee
n
th
e WTRI
(or, s
o
ftwa
re’s
) gra
d
e level as
sessm
ent and the teachers’
grade level asses
s
m
e
nt of
the fifteen selected
Waray
texts
?
Is there
a significant
diffe
re
nce bet
w
een the two
?
; and (b
)
Wh
at is the appr
o
p
riate fo
rm
ula for the
soft
ware
?
Ca
n
we
fo
rm
ulate a ne
w alg
o
rith
m
from
the
gathere
d
data
?
T
h
is study cross
-
validate t
h
e
Waray
Tex
t
Read
ab
ility In
stru
m
e
n
t
an
d
seek
s fo
r an efficien
t tex
t
read
ab
ility fo
rm
u
l
a
tailo
red
fo
r
Waray lan
g
u
a
g
e
to
su
ppo
r
t
th
e M
T
B-
MLE pr
ogr
am
o
f
th
e D
e
p
E
d
.
To
an
swer
th
ese qu
esti
o
n
s
, w
e
co
nducted
an
exp
e
r
i
men
t
.
Selected elem
e
n
tary teache
r
s
were
aske
d t
o
read fiftee
n
(15)
selected
Wa
ray texts, a
n
d
rate what
grade
level
each text s
u
its
by conside
r
ing these th
ree
(3) factors: (a
)
word c
o
ntent; (b
) sentence
length;
and (c) fre
quency
o
f
d
i
fficu
lt word
s.
W
ith tho
s
e g
r
ad
e lev
e
l
ratin
g
s
,
we
co
mp
ared
th
e d
a
ta with
th
e
WTRI’s grad
e lev
e
l ratin
g
s
an
d we ad
m
i
n
i
stered
statistica
l
testin
g
to d
e
term
in
e
if th
ere i
s
a sign
ifican
t
d
i
fferen
ce
b
e
tween th
e t
w
o.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
The
participa
n
ts were
the
teachers
from
two
di
ffere
n
t schools unde
r
T
acloban City Division,
Tacl
oba
n C
i
t
y
, Ley
t
e. W
e
se
l
ect
ed San Fer
n
an
d
o
C
e
nt
ral
Scho
ol
an
d P
a
nal
a
r
on El
em
ent
a
ry
Sch
o
o
l
.
The
school pri
n
cipals
ra
ndom
ly
picke
d
t
h
e twelve (12) teachers
in their re
spective schools havi
ng
a
t
o
tal of
twenty-four (24) teache
r
s as
our res
p
onde
nts. The twel
ve (12) teachers
from
San Ferna
n
do Central School
(SCS) were t
h
e first set
of respondents and t
h
e twel
ve
(12) teachers from
Panala
ron Elementary School (PES)
w
e
r
e
th
e second
set
o
f
our
r
e
sp
ond
en
ts.
Th
e m
a
terial u
s
ed
in
th
e
study w
a
s tak
e
n
fro
m
th
e so
ftw
a
re co
llectio
n
s
of
W
a
ray tex
t
s su
b
m
itted
b
y
di
ffe
re
nt
aut
h
o
r
s.
We
ran
d
o
m
l
y
pi
cked
1
5
s
a
m
p
l
e
s fr
om
the c
o
r
p
u
s
wi
t
h
di
f
f
ere
n
t
g
r
a
d
e l
e
vel
s
an
d
g
e
nres
.
Out
o
f
th
ose
fi
fteen
(
1
5
)
sam
p
les,
five
(
5
)
o
f
them
were
g
r
aded
tw
o
(2
),
f
o
u
r
(4
)
we
re
gr
aded
th
ree
(3
),
thre
e
(3
) we
re g
r
a
d
e
d
f
o
u
r
(
4
), a
n
d
three (
3
)
we
re
gra
d
e
d
five
(5
).
Als
o
, o
u
t
of those fifteen (
1
5
)
ag
ain, five
(5
)
o
f
th
em
w
e
r
e
essays,
f
i
v
e
(5
) w
e
re po
em
s,
f
o
u
r
(4
) w
e
r
e
sto
r
ies, and
o
n
e
(1
) was un
catego
r
ized
.
This study use
d
the expe
rim
e
ntal researc
h
design
by com
p
aring the m
eans of the s
o
ftwa
re and the
g
a
th
ered
d
a
ta.
We used
t
w
o
statistica
l
test; (
a
) t-test fo
r two
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
sam
p
les; an
d
One-W
a
y
An
alysi
s
of
Vari
a
n
ce t
o
an
swer
o
u
r
quest
i
on i
f
t
h
e
r
e i
s
a si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
ffe
rence
bet
w
e
e
n t
h
ose res
u
l
t
s
.
W
e
used t
-
t
e
st
f
o
r
two
depe
ndent
sa
m
p
les to com
p
are the
m
e
a
n
of the s
o
ft
wa
re and the m
e
a
n
of the teache
r
s.
Also
we us
ed the
On
e-Way An
alysis o
f
Varian
ce to
co
m
p
are th
e m
ean
s
o
f
th
e t
h
ree
group
s. Th
is
will te
ll if th
ere is a
significa
nt difference
betwee
n the soft
wa
re and teacher of
SCS, softwa
re
and teacher of
PES, a
nd teacher of
SCS from
teacher of PES.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
Tabl
e
1
bel
o
w
sh
o
w
s t
h
e
di
f
f
ere
n
t
rat
i
n
gs
(
g
ra
de l
e
vel
s
)
o
f
sel
ect
ed
W
a
r
a
y
t
e
xt
s p
r
ovi
ded
by
t
h
e
ele
m
entary teachers
of
San Ferna
n
do Centra
l Sch
ool
(SFCS) a
n
d Pa
nalaron
Central School (PCS).
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Va
lida
tio
n S
t
ud
y
o
f
Wa
ra
y Text Read
ab
ility In
stru
men
t
(Volta
ire Q. Oyzon
)
47
Tabl
e 1.
WTR
I
vs
Teache
r
s'
Gra
d
e Le
vel R
a
tings
of Te
xts
Fo
r co
nv
en
ience, we u
tilized
th
e fo
llowing
ab
brev
iatio
n
s
:
WTRI = Waray
Text Readability
Instru
m
e
nt
SFCS =
Results fr
o
m
San Fer
n
a
ndo Centr
a
l School teacher
s
PCS =
Results from
Panala
ron
Central School teachers
AT Rating=
Avera
g
e Teachers
’
r
a
ting;
(
SFCS + PCS) /
2 or
,
Aver
age of two schools
In
section 3.1, the WTRI’s rating
and t
h
e a
v
erage
teache
r
s’ rating
of
the
texts
were
subjected to a t-
t
e
st
t
o
fi
nd
o
u
t
i
f
t
h
ere i
s
a
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
f
f
e
rence
.
I
n
sect
i
on B
t
-
t
e
st
w
e
re ap
pl
i
e
d a
m
ong t
h
e t
h
re
e:
(a)
soft
ware
’s
rat
i
ngs
of t
h
e t
e
x
t
s;
(b
) r
a
t
i
ngs
of
t
h
e t
e
xt
s
b
y
San
Fer
n
a
n
d
o
C
e
nt
ral
Sc
h
ool
t
eac
her
s
;
a
n
d
(c
)
rat
i
ngs
o
f
t
h
e t
e
xt
s
by
Pa
nal
a
r
o
n
El
em
ent
a
ry
Sch
ool
t
eac
her
s
.
3.
1. Hy
po
thesi
s
T
e
sti
n
g
A.
Test if the
r
e is
a significant
di
ffe
rence
bet
w
e
e
n the
s
o
ftwa
re
and teachers
’
gathe
r
ed data.
Use al
pha
=
0.05
Tabl
e 2.
WTR
I
vs M
e
a
n
Teac
hers'
G
r
ad
e Le
vel
R
a
t
i
ngs
o
f
Text
s
WTRI
ratings
3.
1 4.
4
5.
2
4.
7 4.
6 6.
6
5.
4 6.
3
3.
1 2.
8
3.
7 2.
0
3.
5
4.
0
4.
8
AT
Ratings
2.
0 4.
0
4.
25
6.
0 5.
0 6.
0
4.
0 6.
0
3.
0 2.
5
2.
5 3.
0
3.
5
4.
0
4.
25
Tab
l
e
2
illu
strates th
e d
i
fferen
t
grade lev
e
l
ratin
g
s
of th
e tex
t
s (see on
tab
l
e 1)
b
e
tween th
e
WTRI
and the a
v
e
r
age teachers
’
ratings
(SFCS +
P
CS).
1.
The
r
e is
no si
gni
ficant
diffe
rence
betwee
n t
h
e s
o
ft
ware
and the
teache
r
s’
result.
2.
The
r
e is a
significant di
ffe
rence betwee
n
t
h
e
softwa
re a
n
d the teachers
’
re
sult.
3.
0
.
05
4.
Statistica
l Test
: t-test
5.
Critica
l
Va
lue
:
=
2.145
;
Cri
t
i
c
al
Regi
on
:
< -
2
.
14
5 or
> 2.
14
5
No.
Tit
l
e of
Waray Story
G
e
nre
WTRI’
s
Rat
i
ng
SF
CS
P
C
S
AT Rating
1 An
Kar
a
baw
Stor
y
3.
1
1
3
2
2 Sigbin
E
ssay
4.
4
4
4
4
3
A Buong Nga L
a
hog
Stor
y
5.
2
3
5.
5
4.
25
4
An Akon L
a
Nahihinu
m
d
u
m
an
E
ssay
4.
7
6
6
6
5
Am
o La Gihapon
E
ssay
4.
6
5
5
5
6 Har
upihap
Stor
y
6.
6
6
6
6
7 An
Aswang
E
ssay
5.
4
4
4
4
8
An M
a
dulo
m
Nga
Kagab-
ihon
E
ssay
6.
3
6
6
6
9a
9b
Ako Anak Hin OF
W
Situwasyon
Poe
m
Poe
m
3.
1
2.
8
3
3
3
2
3
2.
5
10a
10b
O Bulan
Poe
m
3.
7
3
2
2.
5
Naghihinglaw
Uncategor
ize
2.
0
4
2
3
11a
11b
An Ngaran Nga
N
a
nay
Dagaw
Poe
m
Poe
m
3.
5
4.
0
3.
5
3.
5
3.
5
4.
5
3.
5
4
12
A
Bay
o
d
Stor
y
4.
8
4.
5
4
4.
25
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
4
5
– 53
48
Tabl
e 3.
M
e
a
n
,
St
an
dar
d
De
vi
at
i
on of
W
T
R
I
and
A
T
Gra
d
e Level
R
a
t
i
n
gs
Tabl
e 3 s
h
ow
s, t
h
e fi
rst
c
o
l
u
m
n
(num
bers
1 t
o
1
5
)
t
h
e
t
e
xt
s
m
e
nt
i
one
d i
n
t
a
bl
e 1
.
The sec
o
n
d
co
lu
m
n
in
d
i
cat
es th
e
Waray
Tex
t
Read
ab
ility In
stru
m
e
n
t
s’ (WTR
I)
g
r
ade lev
e
l rating
s
. The th
ird
co
l
u
m
n
signifies t
h
e a
v
era
g
e m
ean of each te
xt as rated
by
the teachers
(SFC
S
+PCS).
Fourt
h
colum
n
poi
nts the
diffe
re
nce
between
the
W
T
RI ratin
g
fr
om
AT
’s m
ean
ratin
g
(WTRI m
i
n
u
s
AT). To
calcu
late, fo
r in
stan
ce,
the differe
n
ce
of m
ean for te
xt 1,
get the diffe
rence
betwe
e
n the
W
T
R
I
ratings and ave
r
age teache
r
s
’
rating
(AT
)
, w
h
ic
h is 1.1
0
(see
fo
urt
h
colum
d)
;
t
e
xt
2 has a di
f
f
e
r
ence
of 0
.
4
0
,
and s
o
o
n
.
Ad
d
al
l
t
h
ese di
ff
re
nces,
an
d
we
go
t a
to
tal o
f
4
.
20
.
W
e
will u
s
e t
h
is v
a
l
u
e later in
th
e co
m
p
utatio
n
of
v
a
rian
ce. Lastly, th
e fifth
colum
n
(
) in
d
i
cates th
e sq
u
a
red
o
f
th
e
v
a
lu
es in
th
e fo
urth
co
lu
m
n
d.
For
exam
pl
e, for t
e
xt
1, d= 1
.
1
0
, t
h
e
val
u
e 1
.
1
0
i
s
squa
re
d whi
c
h i
s
1.2
1
. T
h
e sa
m
e
m
a
t
h
em
at
i
cal p
r
o
cess is
ap
p
lied
to
tex
t
s 2
to
1
5
. Th
e
to
tal o
f
all th
e
,
will b
e
n
eed
ed
i
n
o
u
r
co
m
p
u
t
atio
n
o
f
stan
d
a
rd
d
e
v
i
at
io
n
b
e
low.
6.
Com
p
u
t
a
t
ion
:
=
=
=
0.
28
;
=
=
0.77
=
=
=
1.408
1.
Decision
: Do
no
t
rej
ect
, si
nce
1.
40
8 <
2
.
1
4
5
.
2.
Co
nclusion
:
Th
ere is su
fficien
t
ev
i
d
en
ce
th
at th
ere is
no
si
gn
ifican
t
differe
n
ce
betwee
n t
h
e softwa
re
and teache
r
s’ grade
level
ratings
of the te
xts.
Tabl
e 4 s
h
o
w
s t
h
e di
ff
ere
n
t
readi
n
g l
e
ve
l
rat
i
ngs o
f
t
h
e 1
2
t
e
xt
s g
i
ven
by
t
h
e Waray
Te
xt
Readability Instrum
e
nt (WTRI), by t
h
e te
achers of
San
Fernando Cent
ra
l Sc
hool, a
n
d
by the
teachers
of
Panal
a
r
o
n C
e
nt
ral
Sc
ho
ol
. B
e
l
o
w
i
s
o
u
r
c
o
m
put
at
i
o
n
of
t
h
e
m
eans an
d
vari
ances.
Tabl
e
4.
WTR
I
vs.
S
F
C
S
vs.
PC
S G
r
a
d
e Le
vel
R
a
t
i
ngs
o
f
Text
s
WTRI
AT
d
1
3.
1
2.
0
1.
10
1.
21
2
4.
4
4.
0
0.
40
0.
16
3
5.
2
4.
25
0.
95
0.
90
4
4.
7
6.
0
-
1
.
30
1.
69
5
4.
6
5.
0
-
0
.
40
0.
16
6
6.
6
6.
0
0.
60
0.
36
7
5.
4
4.
0
1.
40
1.
96
8
6.
3
6.
0
0.
30
0.
09
9
3.
1
3.
0
0.
10
0.
01
10
2.
8
2.
5
0.
30
0.
09
11
3.
7
2.
5
1.
20
1.
44
12
2.
0
3.
0
-1
.0
1.
00
13
3.
5
3.
5
0.
00
0.
00
14
4.
0
4.
0
0.
00
0.
00
15
4.
8
4.
25
0.
55
0.
30
= 4.
20
= 9.
38
WRTI rating
Teachers fro
m
S
F
CS
rating
Teachers fro
m
P
C
S
ratings
3.
1
1
3
4.
4
4
4
5.
2
3
5.
5
4.
7
6
6
4.
6
5
5
6.
6
6
6
5.
4
4
4
6.
3
6
6
3.
1
3
3
2.
8
3
2
3.
7
3
2
2.
0
4
2
3.
5
3.
5
3.
5
4.
0
3.
5
4.
5
4.
8
4.
5
4
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Va
lida
tio
n S
t
ud
y
o
f
Wa
ra
y Text Read
ab
ility In
stru
men
t
(Volta
ire Q. Oyzon
)
49
B.
Test
i
f
t
h
ere i
s
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
f
f
e
rence am
on
g
t
h
e t
h
ree:
(a) s
o
ft
ware;
(
b
) Sa
n Fe
rna
n
do C
e
nt
ral
Sc
ho
ol
;
a
n
d
(c) Panala
ro
n Elem
entary
Sc
ho
ol.
1.
All m
eans are
equal
2.
Not all m
eans are e
qual
3.
0
.
05
4.
Statistic
a
l
Test
: F-
test
(
O
n
e
-w
ay ANO
VA
)
5.
Critica
l
Va
lue
:
= 3.23 ;
Criti
c
al Re
gio
n
:
> 3.
23
Table 5 indicates the W
T
R
I’s m
ean which at 4.
28; variance at 1.67; SFCS’s m
e
a
n
is at 3.97;
varia
n
ce
at 1.91;
and PCS’s mean
is
at 4.03; varia
n
ce is at
2.12.
6.
C
o
mp
ut
at
io
ns
:
a.
Com
pute the
means and
vari
an
ces
of the t
h
ree groups.
Tabl
e
5.
WTR
I
vs.
SFC
S
v
s
.
PC
S M
e
a
n
a
n
d
Vari
a
n
ce
b.
Find
the grand mean:
c.
Fi
nd
t
h
e bet
w
e
e
n – gr
o
u
p
va
ri
ance
=
0.406
d.
Fin
d
th
e with
in
–
group
v
a
riance
=
1.9
e.
Find
Tabl
e 6. Vari
at
i
on bet
w
ee
n W
T
R
I
&
AT/
Wi
t
h
i
n
AT
Source of
Variation
Su
m
of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F –
Va
lue
F Cri
t
ica
l
Betw
een WTRI & AT
0.
812
2
0.
406
0.
214
3.
23
Within AT
79.
8
42
1.
9
Total
80.
61
44
7.
, si
nce
3
.
23
WTRI SFCS
PCS
M
ean = 4.
28
M
ean = 3.
97
M
ean = 4.
03
Variance =
1.67
Variance =
1.91
Variance =
2.12
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
4
5
– 53
50
Table 6
s
h
ows
the
va
riation
between WTR
I
ratings
of
t
h
e t
e
xts a
n
d the a
v
erag
e
of all the
teachers
’
ratings
(AT
)
.
Since the
F-value is less tha
n
3.23, th
is
im
plies
that the
softwa
re,
SCS teache
r
s a
n
d PE
S
teachers ha
ve no
significant
diffe
re
nce on
ranki
ng the te
xt
s. .
In
othe
r
words
,
the
r
e is
sufficient evi
d
enc
e
that
all
m
eans are e
qual.
3.
2.
The Number
of W
o
rds in a
Text
“Th
e
m
o
re th
e wo
rd
s in
a text, th
e h
i
g
h
e
r the g
r
ad
e lev
e
l it
ran
k
s,” m
o
st
o
f
th
e respo
nden
t
s say. In
the
process
of our data
gat
h
ering,
m
a
jority of the
teache
r
s suggested th
at the
num
ber
of words
in the text
shoul
d
be fact
ore
d
in in the
validation of W
T
R
I
.
W
e
a
ccepted the c
h
allenge
of the teachers, and we
form
u
l
ated
a new algorith
m
,
an
altern
ativ
e t
o
th
e ex
istin
g
WTRI.
And
we tested
th
is new algorith
m
resu
lts
with
th
e
WTRI rating
s
o
f
th
e
sam
e
tex
t
s (see tab
l
e 7 b
e
l
o
w).
Let
A
be t
h
e t
o
t
a
l
num
ber
of
wo
rd
s
Let
B
be t
h
e
pe
rcent
a
ge
of
n
o
t
fre
q
u
ent
l
y
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
wo
r
d
s
Tabl
e 7.
T
o
ral
No
. of Wo
r
d
s
vi
s-à
-
vi
s Perce
n
at
age o
f
No
n-
Fre
que
nt
Wo
rd
s
Gra
d
e Le
vels
Tabl
e
7 si
m
p
l
e
su
gg
est
s
t
h
at
f
o
r
a st
o
r
y
wi
t
h
10
0
w
o
r
d
s a
n
d
has
1
0
%
of
i
t
s
voca
b
ul
ary
i
s
n
o
n
-
fre
que
nt
l
y
occ
u
r
r
i
n
g
wo
r
d
s;
i
t
sh
oul
d
have
a
g
r
ade
l
e
vel
rat
i
ng
o
f
1. M
e
a
n
i
ng,
t
h
i
s
t
e
xt
i
s
sui
t
a
bl
e f
o
r
gra
d
e
1.
On
t
h
e
ot
he
r
h
a
nd
, i
f
a t
e
xt
h
a
s 6
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
wo
rds
,
a
n
d
ha
s
60
% o
f
i
t
s
voca
b
ul
ary
i
s
no
n
-
f
r
e
que
nt
;
i
t
m
u
st ha
ve a
ratin
g lev
e
l
o
f
g
r
ad
e
6
.
Mean
i
n
g, th
is story is su
ited fo
r grade 6
.
In ord
e
r t
o
d
o
th
is we
n
eed to
form
u
l
ate n
e
w
n
e
w algo
rith
m
,
an
altern
ativ
e
to
th
e ex
isting
WTRI.
Solve
the num
erical coe
fficie
n
t
of the
tw
o factors
Let x
b
e
t
h
e
n
u
merical co
efficien
t of th
e to
tal nu
m
b
er of
word
s
Let
y
be t
h
e
nu
m
e
ri
cal
coeffi
c
i
ent
o
f
t
h
e
pe
rc
ent
a
ge
o
f
not
fr
eque
nt
l
y
occ
u
r
r
i
n
g
wo
rds
B
a
sed
on
t
h
e t
a
bl
e,
we ca
n
ha
ve,
1
00x
+
10
y =
1
2
00x
+
10
y =
1.5
Usi
n
g t
h
i
s
t
w
o
equat
i
o
ns
, s
o
l
v
e f
o
r
x a
n
d y
.
Sol.
1
00x
+
10
y – 1 = 0
(1
)
(2
0
0
x
+ 10y
– 1.
5
= 0
)
(2
)
-
1
00x
+
0
+ 1
= 0
(3
)
So
lv
e fo
r x usin
g equ
a
tion
(3
)
.
-
100
x +
1
=
0
1
=
10
0x
x
=
1
/
100
x =
0.
0
0
5
No
w s
o
l
v
e
f
o
r
y
usi
n
g t
h
e
val
u
e
of
x
an
d e
q
uat
i
o
n
(1
)
or
(2
).
Usi
n
g t
h
e e
qua
t
i
on
(1
),
1
00(
0.005
)
+ 10
y – 1 =
0
0
.
5
+
10
y – 1 = 0
10
y =
0
.
5
B
A
100
1 1.
5
2
2.
5
3
3.
5
200
1.
5 2
2.
5
2.
0
3.
5
4
300
2 2.
5
3
3.
5
4
4.
5
400
2.
5 3
3.
5
4
4.
5
5
500
3 3.
5
4
4.
5
5
5.
5
600
3.
5 4
4.
5
5
5.
5
6
10
20
30
40
50
60
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Va
lida
tio
n S
t
ud
y
o
f
Wa
ra
y Text Read
ab
ility In
stru
men
t
(Volta
ire Q. Oyzon
)
51
y =
0.
5/
1
0
o
r
0
.
05
Asi
d
e
f
r
om
t
w
o
fact
or
s a
b
o
v
e
,
se
nt
ence l
e
ng
t
h
al
so
one of
the factors
that n
eed to
con
s
ider.
Sho
r
ter
sen
t
en
ces ind
i
cate si
m
p
ler read
ing
lev
e
l. Very si
m
p
le tex
t
s
h
a
v
e
less th
an
1
0
wo
rd
s p
e
r sen
t
en
ce. Di
fficu
lt
t
e
xt
s can
ha
ve
m
o
re t
h
an
2
0
[
2
]
.
B
a
sed on
t
h
e g
i
ven
i
n
t
e
r
v
al
,
0.1
is
the
best
fit num
e
rical coeffi
cient for
t
h
e sentence
length.
Pr
oof
:
Let z be
the
numerical coeffic
i
en
t of the
ave
r
age se
ntence
lengt
h.
Sup
p
o
s
e t
h
e averag
e sen
t
en
ce
len
g
t
h is
1
0
, th
en
it will be con
s
id
ered easy (g
rad
e
I)
Now
we can
hav
e
th
is equ
a
tio
n,
10z
=
1
T
h
en
,
z =
1
/
10
o
r
z
=
0.
1
There
f
ore, 0.1
is the
num
erical co
efficient for the
sente
n
ce l
e
ngt
h.
Pl
us t
h
e c
onst
a
nt
as a
bal
a
nce
r
of t
h
e e
quat
i
o
n
whi
c
h i
s
0.
8
7
.
No
w t
h
e
final f
o
rm
ula is,
Grade
L
e
vel
= (0
.0
05
x
To
tal Nu
m
b
er
of
Wo
rd
s) +
(
0
.05
x Per
c
en
tag
e
of
n
o
t
f
r
e
qu
en
tly
occu
rri
ng
w
o
rd
) +
(0
.1
x
A
v
e
r
age Se
nt
enc
e
L
e
ngt
h)
+
0.
87
Or
GL =
A
x +
B
y +
C
z +
0.87
w
h
er
e
A
b
e
th
e To
tal Nu
m
b
er
o
f
Word
s
B
be t
h
e Pe
rce
n
t
a
ge
o
f
not
fre
que
nt
l
y
occ
u
r
r
i
n
g
w
o
r
d
C
be t
h
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e Se
nt
ence
Le
ngt
h
x =
0.
0
0
5
y
=
0.
0
5
z =
0
.
1
3.
3.
Com
p
ari
s
on
o
f
t
h
e
Resul
t
s
Th
is tim
e we co
m
p
ared
t
h
e
grad
e lev
e
l
rating
s
o
f
th
e tex
t
s
b
y
WTRI
v
s
.
SFCS
v
s
. PCS v
s
. th
e
n
e
w
al
go
ri
t
h
m
(New F
)
. I
n
t
a
bl
e 8 bel
o
w
,
the
num
b
ers in re
d i
ndicate the e
x
t
r
em
e val
u
es or
t
hose
val
u
e
s
f
a
r awa
y
fr
om
t
h
e ot
he
r
val
u
es
.
Tabl
e 8. WR
T
I
vs.
SFC
S vs. PC
S
v
s
. Ne
w
F
o
rm
ul
a
Gra
d
e Level
R
a
t
i
n
gs of
Text
s
No. Title
WTRI
SFCS
PCS
New
F.
1 An
Kar
a
baw
3.
1
1
3
3.
57
2 Sigbin
4.
4
4
4
4.
16
3
A Buong Nga L
a
hog
5.
2
3
5.
5
5.
66
4
An Akon L
a
Nahihinu
m
d
u
m
an
4.
7
6
6
6.
39
5
Am
o La Gihapon
4.
6
5
5
5.
51
6 Har
upihap
6.
6
6
6
8.
05
7 An
Aswang
5.
4
4
4
5.
47
8
An M
a
dulo
m
Nga
Kagab-
ihon
6.
3
6
6
8.
01
9
Ako Anak Hin OFW
3.
1
3
3
2.
94
10
Situwasy
on
2.
8
3
2
2.
45
11
O
Bulan
3.
7
3
2
2.
96
12
Naghihinglaw
2.
0
4
2
1.
99
13
An Ngar
an Nga
Nanay
3.
5
3.
5
3.
5
2.
87
14
Dagaw
4.
0
3.
5
4.
5
3.
08
15
A
Bay
o
d
4.
8
4.
5
4
4.
16
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
4
5
– 53
52
Fu
rt
h
e
r test was ad
m
i
n
i
stered
an
d
resu
lted
to th
e n
on-rej
ectio
n
o
f
t
h
e nu
ll h
ypo
th
esis,
which
m
ean
s,
there is no significant di
ffe
re
nce be
t
w
een the existing
WT
RI form
ula and th
at of t
h
e ne
w form
ula, where the
total num
ber
of words
in
a te
xt wa
s fact
ore
d
in, a
s
s
u
ggeste
d
by the
res
p
ondent/teache
r
s.
On
e exp
l
an
ati
o
n
to th
is
wo
u
l
d
b
e
fro
m
[7
] who
po
sits th
at “th
e
co
m
p
rehen
s
ib
ility o
r
d
i
fficu
lty of a
messag
e
is d
o
min
a
ted
b
y
th
e familiarit
y
o
f
th
e sem
a
n
tic u
n
its and
by th
e co
m
p
le
x
ity o
f
th
e syn
t
actic
stru
ctures
u
s
ed in
co
nstru
c
ti
ng
th
e m
e
ssag
e
not
by
t
h
e nu
m
b
er of
w
o
rds
”
(
e
m
phasi
s a
dde
d)
.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
Th
e ev
id
en
ce in
th
is stud
y led
to
th
e
fo
ll
o
w
in
g
co
n
c
l
u
sions: (1
)
Fro
m
th
e first ph
ase
of th
e stud
y,
determ
ining t
h
e differe
n
ce
be
tween the
WT
RI/soft
w
are
’
s
and the
teache
r
s’
gra
d
e le
ve
l
ratings, the
conclusion
reache
d
is that
the existing
Waray
Te
xt Readability Form
ula has a valid
result on cal
culating the re
adability
of t
h
e
particul
ar text as determ
ined
by the
teachers’
analysis on ranking the text
. (2)
On the second phase,
determ
ining the differe
n
ce a
m
ong the t
h
ree
:
(a)
WTR
I
; (b
) Sa
n Fe
rnando Central Sc
hool teachers
’
rati
ng; a
nd
(c) Pa
nalaron
Central School teachers’
rating, re
sulted i
n
not reje
cting the
null hypo
thesis. This im
plies
that
,
all in all, the San Fe
rna
n
do C
e
ntral Sc
hool teachers
’
ra
ti
ngs ha
ve no si
gni
ficant di
ffe
rence whe
n
c
o
m
p
ared
t
o
t
h
e rat
i
n
gs gi
v
e
n by
t
h
e t
eac
hers
of
Panal
a
ro
n C
e
nt
r
a
l
Scho
ol
, as
wel
l
as wi
t
h
t
h
at
o
f
t
h
e so
ft
wa
re (
W
TR
I
)
.
(3) Lastly, th
e
form
u
l
atio
n
of th
e
n
e
w algo
rith
m
was th
e pr
odu
ct of
th
e su
gg
estion
s
of
o
u
r
r
e
spon
den
t
s th
at
t
h
e num
ber o
f
wor
d
s m
u
st
be i
n
cl
u
d
ed as
one o
f
t
h
e fa
ct
ors. T
h
e t
o
t
a
l
num
ber of wo
rd
s i
n
a t
e
xt
was
disre
g
arde
d since they we
re
particul
ar
on the
syntactic and
sem
a
ntic co
m
pone
nts to dete
rm
ine the rea
d
a
b
ility
of t
h
e t
e
xt
. H
o
weve
r, t
h
e ne
w fo
rm
ul
a has a val
i
d
cal
culat
i
on an
d t
h
ere
was no si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
di
ffe
re
nce
exi
s
t
s
bet
w
ee
n t
h
e
n
e
w f
o
rm
ul
a and
t
h
e
WTR
I
c
u
r
r
e
nt
f
o
rm
ul
a.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
Th
e fo
llowing p
e
op
le
willin
g
l
y ex
tend
ed
h
e
lp
i
n
on
e
way o
r
an
o
t
h
e
r
d
u
ring
th
e cond
u
c
t
o
f
t
h
is
pr
o
j
ect
:
Jo
hn
M
a
rk
Ful
l
m
er, Lo
rena
M
.
R
i
pal
d
a, M
s
.
Gr
et
el
C
a
di
on
g,
M
T
B
M
LE C
o
or
di
nat
o
r
f
o
r
Dep
E
d
Tacl
oba
n C
i
t
y
Di
vi
si
o
n
, t
h
e
p
r
i
n
ci
pal
a
n
d t
e
achers
o
f
Pa
nal
a
ro
n C
e
nt
ral
El
em
ent
a
ry
Sch
o
o
l
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
pri
n
ci
pal
and teache
r
s
of San Fe
rna
n
do
Central Elem
e
n
tary Sc
hool.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
F
l
es
ch R., “
A
new readabi
lit
y
yards
tick
”
,
Journ
a
l of Applied Psychology
, vol/issue: 32(3), pp. 221-233, 1948.
[http://dx.do
i.or
g/10.1037/h0057
532]
.
[2]
Carroll JB., Davies P., Rich
man B., "The American Her
itag
e
Word Frequen
c
y
Book”,
New
York: American
Heritag
e
, 1971.
[3]
Dale
E.
, Ch
all
J.,
“
A
form
ula for
predic
ting r
ead
a
b
ilit
y”
,
Edu
c
atio
nal Research
Bu
lletin
, vol. 27
, 1
948.
[4]
S
p
ache G.
, “
A
n
e
w read
abil
it
y f
o
rm
ula for prim
ar
y-grade
re
adin
g m
a
teri
als
”
,
Elementary schoo
l journal,
vo
l. 53
,
pp. 410-413
, 19
53.
[5]
MetaMetr
ics, I
n
c., “The
Lexicile
Framework for Reading: Techni
cal Report”, 2007
. Retrieved from <
https://www.azed.gov/wp.../LFforReading
T
echn
i
calR
e
port_0420
07.pdf>
[6]
Oy
z
o
n
V.
,
F
u
l
lme
r
J
M
.
,
“
Mother-Tongue Bas
e
d Multilingu
al Educatio
n
(MTBMLE) Initiativ
es in R
e
gion 8
”
,
International Jo
urnal of
Evalua
tion
and Research
in Education
(
I
JERE)
, vol/issue: 3(1), pp. 53-65
, 2014.
[7]
Carver RP., “Measuring the primar
y
effect of r
eading
:
Reading
storage techn
i
q
u
e,
understand
in
g judgments and
cloz
e”
,
Journal of
Reading Beha
vior
, vo
l. 6, pp.
249–274, 1974
.
BIOGRAP
HI
ES OF
AUTH
ORS
Vol
t
ai
r
e
Q.
Oyzon
is a m
e
m
b
er of Asia-Pa
c
ifi
c
W
r
iters
and
T
r
anslators Assoc
i
ation
.
H
e
tea
c
hes
lit
era
t
u
r
e and s
o
cia
l
s
c
ienc
es
cours
e
s
at the Le
yt
e Norm
al Univers
i
t
y
. In
collaboration with others
, he
has
edited books su
ch as, "S
y
a
h
a
n n
g
a Hiwat: An N
a
magdaog
han S
y
ah
an nga
Pasidungog Eduardo A. Makabenta,
Sr. Par
a
han
Siday
(2010
, with Michael
Carlo C. Villas
& Jose N. Lianza), publ
ished
by
Sinirang
an Culture & Arts Developm
ent
Center
: L
e
yte
Norm
al Univers
i
t
y
,
T
aclob
an C
ity; "An Bag-o ng
a Ortograpiy
a han Winaray
"
(2012, with
Ricardo Ma. D. No
lasco and Fir
i
e Jill Ramos), "S
y
a
h
a
n nga Usa Ka
Yukot nga
mga Pulong nga Agsob Gamiton
ha Winaray
:
Pagpurulongan par
a
han mga Magturutdo ha
MTBMLE" (2013, with John
Mark Fullmer
a
nd Evely
n
C. Cruzada) and, "Learner
'
s
Classified Dictionar
y
for Learn
i
ng Englis
h-war
a
y
-
K
a
na-In
abak
non-Tagalog Vocabularies"
(2014, with John Mark Fullm
er and Evel
y
n
C. Cruzad
a) published b
y
the
Philippines
Commission on
Higher Edu
c
atio
n.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Va
lida
tio
n S
t
ud
y
o
f
Wa
ra
y Text Read
ab
ility In
stru
men
t
(Volta
ire Q. Oyzon
)
53
Juven B. Corrales
is currently
working on his
Master’s
degree
m
a
jor in Mathe
m
atics at th
e
Le
yt
e Norm
al U
n
ivers
i
t
y
Gr
adua
te S
c
hoo
l.
Wilfredo M. E
s
tardo, Jr
Corral
e
s
is curr
ently working on his
Master’s degr
ee major in
Mathematics at the Ley
t
e Normal
University
G
r
ad
uate School.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.