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 h5DHJfC24207; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:19:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:19:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <003401c331cf$63cee2c0$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:4013] Re: More on readability formulas and computers X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Status: O Content-Length: 6135 Lines: 155 Greetings, colleagues: Laurie asked about how to prepare a document for an analysis if you are using computer software. I'm reluctant to share this because I don't want to encourage anyone to use Word's readability function but I know some of you are going to do it anyway, right? ;) So you might as well know how to do it in the best way it can be done. Just remember to take your results with a grain of salt. Word's Flesch-Kincaid score is often lower than the reading level on many other scores. Also remember there are dozens of other factors that affect reading comprehension. If you're interested in buying a readability software program that works well, I recommend "Readability Calculations" Formula Set 1 from Micro Power and Light Co. at (214) 553-0105. OK, here are the basic things I always do before I analyze text. Sample Size Make sure you have selected at least 300-500 words or 30 sentences. Like anything, the bigger the sample size, the better your results. Now "Clean Up" Your Text You may have problems with reliability and accuracy if you don't "clean up" your text first. Be sure to go through the document and delete: --headings --lists with bullets that are not full sentences (and their stem sentences) --sentence fragments --extraneous periods that don't really mark the end of a sentence, such as numerals with periods after them (e.g., 1. or 2. in numbered lists), abbreviations (e.g., Jill M. Sanchez, M.D., F.A.C.S.), the Q. and A. in text, periods in e.g., or i.e., decimals (e.g., 98.6 degrees or 12.9%), periods in times (e.g., 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.), website addresses, and any others you may find. This is important because your program may read some periods as the end of a sentence. That can spell big trouble since readability formulas count number of sentences as one of two critical pieces of information! After I've done the "clean up" above I save it as a new document with a new name so I don't lose information I meant to keep. It's best to save it in "text only" format for most software programs. That's pretty much it. If you print out and share these instructions, please include the copyright and credit information. © 2003 Audrey Riffenburgh Thanks! Hope this is helpful. Audrey Riffenburgh, M.A. President, Riffenburgh & Associates P.O. Box 6670, Albuquerque, NM 87197-6670 Phone: (505) 345-1107 Fax: (505) 345-1104 E-mail: ar@plainlanguageworks.com Specialists in Plain Language & Health Literacy since 1994 ============================================= Principal & Founding Member, The Clear Language Group www.clearlanguagegroup.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <Laurosen@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4008] Re: More on readability formulas > Audrey, > > In your e-mail response (below) of May 21, you wrote, "You need to know how > to prepare your document for an analysis before you run it through any software > program." I would appreciate hearing what specifically you mean when you say > this, and perhaps others on the list would too. Thanks. > > Laurie Rosenblum > Laurosen@aol.com > > In a message dated 5/21/03 5:12:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > ar@plainlanguageworks.com writes: > > << 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. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:09 EST