↓ Skip to main content

Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1961 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
861 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, November 2009
DOI 10.3758/brm.41.4.977
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Brysbaert, Boris New

Abstract

Word frequency is the most important variable in research on word processing and memory. Yet, the main criterion for selecting word frequency norms has been the availability of the measure, rather than its quality. As a result, much research is still based on the old Kucera and Francis frequency norms. By using the lexical decision times of recently published megastudies, we show how bad this measure is and what must be done to improve it. In particular, we investigated the size of the corpus, the language register on which the corpus is based, and the definition of the frequency measure. We observed that corpus size is of practical importance for small sizes (depending on the frequency of the word), but not for sizes above 16-30 million words. As for the language register, we found that frequencies based on television and film subtitles are better than frequencies based on written sources, certainly for the monosyllabic and bisyllabic words used in psycholinguistic research. Finally, we found that lemma frequencies are not superior to word form frequencies in English and that a measure of contextual diversity is better than a measure based on raw frequency of occurrence. Part of the superiority of the latter is due to the words that are frequently used as names. Assembling a new frequency norm on the basis of these considerations turned out to predict word processing times much better than did the existing norms (including Kucera & Francis and Celex). The new SUBTL frequency norms from the SUBTLEX(US) corpus are freely available for research purposes from http://brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental, as well as from the University of Ghent and Lexique Web sites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 861 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 24 3%
United Kingdom 10 1%
Germany 6 <1%
Belgium 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 802 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 228 26%
Researcher 129 15%
Student > Master 90 10%
Student > Bachelor 72 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 51 6%
Other 153 18%
Unknown 138 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 327 38%
Linguistics 161 19%
Computer Science 43 5%
Neuroscience 42 5%
Social Sciences 30 3%
Other 81 9%
Unknown 177 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2014.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,636
of 2,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,748
of 108,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.