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 h4MDJcC27870; Thu, 22 May 2003 09:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <OFACEDE613.35004E42-ON85256D2E.0048A336-85256D2E.0048D8A2@notes.duke.edu>
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: "Kerry Harwood" <harwo001@mc.duke.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3985] Re: More on readability formulas
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002
Status: O
Content-Length: 5620
Lines: 101
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST