[NIFL-HEALTH:3980] Readability Testing

From: Arvanitis, Jill (JArvanitis@air.org)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 16:44:47 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 h4JKilC20326; Mon, 19 May 2003 16:44:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:44:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0D701171004CD611A3EF00065B3C360AF2F38B@md1.air.org>
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: "Arvanitis, Jill" <JArvanitis@air.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3980] Readability Testing
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain;
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Status: O
Content-Length: 574
Lines: 17

Dear Health Literacy ListServ Members:

It seems there is often some debate about which readability test to use.  On
another listserv that I belong to, many health educators voiced that they
preferred the SMOG Readability test.  While other colleges prefer the
Flesch-Kincaid (Microsoft Word offers this option) or the Flesch Reading
Ease.  

Which readability test do you prefer (there are others besides the ones I
mentioned above) when you are trying to produce an easy-to-read print
product and why?

In advance, thanks for your feedback.   

Sincerely,

Jill Arvanitis

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST