Home > Strategies and Skill Development > Print Strategy Families > Proofreading > Literature Note - Proofreading


The following references cover some of the major effects known with respect to proofreading, which has certain key features: familiarity effects, which make it difficult to detect errors due to interference from the intended meaning/form, and the generally difficult nature of the task, as it requires suppression of automated reading processes in order to work efficiently.

Suggested Reading
Bisaillon, J. (2007). Professional editing strategies used by six editors. Written Communication, 24, 295-322.

Daneman, M., & Stainton, M. (1993). The generation effect in reading and proofreading. Reading and Writing, 5, 297-313.

Hacker, D. J., Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Quathamer, D., & Heineken, E. (1994). Text revision: Detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 65-78.

Harris, J. (1987). Proofreading: A reading/writing skill. College Composition and Communication, 38(4), 454-466.

Kervin, L. K. (2002, June). Proofreading as a strategy for spelling development. Reading Online, 5(10). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/international/inter_index.asp?HREF=kervin/index.html

Levy, B. A. (1983). Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing. Memory & Cognition, 11, 1-12.

Pilotti, M., Chodorow, M., & Thornton, K. C. (2005). Effects of familiarity and type of encoding on proofreading of text. Reading and Writing, 18(4), 325-341.

Pilotti, M., Maxwell, K., & Chodorow, M. (2006). Does the effect of familiarity on proofreading change with encoding task and time? Journal of General Psychology, 133, 287-299.





Home | About CBAL | Acknowledgments | Contact Us

© 2012 Educational Testing Service. The Common Core State Standards © copyright 2010 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.