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 h4P2l6C00049; Sat, 24 May 2003 22:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 22:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <79E894F9.0F328DEF.1000B95A@netscape.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: pdmolinsky@netscape.net To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3995] Re: More on readability formulas X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 6562 Lines: 115 I used the SAM criteria to set up an Access data table to enter the results of an assessment I did of a clinic's patient education materials. This made it easy to sort the scoring results to use in a report of which materials were not suitable. I also used the results to do a search for more suitable materials that I could recommend to the clinic's health education committee. Paula De Leon Molinsky "Kerry Harwood" <harwo001@mc.duke.edu> wrote: > >List recipients - >An additional strategy to consider is using the Suitability Assessment of >Materials, published by Doak, Doak, and Root. �There are many factors that >play into the readability of materials, with reading level being only one. >SAM provides a structure to evaluate a number of other factors, in addition >to readability level. > >Kerry Harwood > > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �Audrey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �Riffenburgh � � � � � � �To: � � � Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �<ar@plainlanguage � � � �cc: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �works.com> � � � � � � � Subject: �[NIFL-HEALTH:3984] More on readability formulas � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �Sent by: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �nifl-health@nifl. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �gov � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �05/21/2003 05:12 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �PM � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �Please respond to � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � �nifl-health � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:09 EST