{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021567217828900073, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004313443565780014, 'mean_word_length': 5.242152466367713, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Three Factors in Reading Ability: Reanalysis of a Study by Cunningham, Stanovich, and Wilson

Cunningham, Stanovich, and Wilson (1990) tested college students and concluded from their 22 measures that three factors were needed to explain individual differences in reading ability; one of these factors was called Word Recognition. Their data have been reanalyzed to determine whether there is any support for the three individual difference factors advanced in rauding theory—called rauding accuracy level (AL), rauding rate level (RL), and rauding efficiency level (EL). A factor analysis of their nine variables that measured reading ability yielded two factors; one was readily identified as AL because its highest loadings were on vocabulary and listening tests, and the other was readily identified as RL because its highest loadings were on measures of reading rate. When a single factor fit was forced upon these data, the resulting factor was readily identified as EL because the highest loadings were on measures of general reading ability such as reading comprehension and efficiency. It appears that individual differences in almost all measures of reading ability can be explained by regarding AL and RL as correlated subfactors of general reading ability, EL. The Word Recognition factor found by Cunningham et al. appears to be a rate factor, called rauding rate level, RL.