[NIFL-HEALTH:3995] Re: More on readability formulas

From: pdmolinsky@netscape.net
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 22:47:06 EDT


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