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 h4JM0HC24264; Mon, 19 May 2003 18:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <HFEOKEOKAENPEEILPJCFCEEKCLAA.jkeenan@erols.com> 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: "Jann Keenan" <jkeenan@erols.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3982] Re: Readability Testing--Try the FRY! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1154 Lines: 33 Hello Folks. Yep--the computerized formulas just have too much room for error--often coming in a grade to a grade and a half above or below the actual reading level. In the health literacy field for nearly two decades, I definitely prefer using the FRY test. I have found it to be quite accurate and easy to do once you get the hang of it. As with all readability formulas--I offer this caveat. The formulas just look at the words. We know that a blue zillion things go into producing a document that is health literate and easy-to-read as well as being appealing. You know those things--culture, graphics, type size, font choice, line length, paper choice, ink choice, being behavior focused.. . .the list goes on. But, if you just want to know the reading level--use the FRY. also, look in the NIFL archives for practical comments when the readability issue came up last year. Good luck with readability and give Fry a try! With regards, Jann Keenan, Ed.S. President, The Keenan Group, Inc. --Experts in Health Literacy 9862 Century Drive, Ellicott City, MD 21042 410-480-9716 www.keenangroupinc.com Founding member, The Clear Language Group
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST