Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4LLCVC27442; Wed, 21 May 2003 17:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 17:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <00af01c31fdd$0ef24de0$738d2344@montbl01.nm.comcast.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Audrey Riffenburgh <ar@plainlanguageworks.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3984] More on readability formulas X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Status: O Content-Length: 3077 Lines: 65 Dear Jill and other colleagues, The readability formula question is a good one. First, I want to affirm what Mark Hochhauser reminded us about these formulas. They only measure two features of reading difficulty: average sentence length and average word length. There are dozens of other factors that affect the difficulty or ease of a piece, including what the reader brings to the process (interest, background knowledge, etc.). That said, let's go on to the formula question. The two most commonly used formulas in health care are the SMOG and the Fry. I recommend using the SMOG for most materials. It's easier to learn and use than the Fry, it's reliable, and its scores match many other formulas I trust. There are many sets of instructions for the SMOG on the Internet but some are presented more clearly and accurately than others. This is the best version I could find: http://www.health.state.mn.us/communityeng/groups/test.html. If you are planning to create or evaluate low-literacy materials, I'd recommend using the Fry. It seems to be a bit more accurate at the lower levels than the SMOG. (Good instructions for the Fry can be found in "Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills" by Doak, Doak, and Root. ISBN 0-397-55161-4.) One thing to note: Readability scores are considered to be accurate only plus or minus 1.5 "grade" levels. The Flesch-Kincaid in Word is not a good option, in my opinion. There are several reasons for this: 1) Mark already listed the fact that it only goes up to 12th "grade" level. So if your piece is written at graduate school level, you wouldn't know it. This can be important to know if you are trying to gain support for using plain language and you want to emphasize how far off target your materials really are. 2) The Flesch-Kincaid formula in Word is sometimes inconsistent. I've seen it give scores many grades apart on the same document when I analyzed it twice 5 minutes apart. 3) The Flesch-Kincaid formula often gives a score 2-3 "grades" lower than most other formulas I trust (whether in Word or another software program). 4) You need to know how to prepare your document for an analysis before you run it through any software program. The Flesch Reading Ease is a different formula and it works extremely well. It correlates well with the Fry and the SMOG but it rates difficulty on a scale from 0-100 rather than with "grade" levels. You'll need the interpretation chart to make meaning out of the score. (The higher the score, the easier it is to read.) And, again, you need to know how to prepare your document before you run it through any software program. The bottom line: using either Fry or SMOG by hand is probably your best bet. Audrey Riffenburgh, M.A. President, Riffenburgh & Associates Specialists in Plain Language & Health Literacy since 1994 P.O. Box 6670, Albuquerque, NM 87197-6670 Phone: (505) 345-1107 Fax: (505) 345-1104 E-mail: ar@plainlanguageworks.com ============================================= Principal & Founding Member, The Clear Language Group www.clearlanguagegroup.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST