Return-Path: <root> Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBt2g10463 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200108311155.f7VBt2g10463@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from inside.sickkids.on.ca (mail.sickkids.on.ca [142.20.67.51]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KEZwf20883 for <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:35:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca (notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca [142.20.71.62]) by inside.sickkids.on.ca (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f5KEZv613879 for <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:35:57 -0400 Received: by notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 85256A71.00502CC8 ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:35:43 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: HSC From: michelle.black@sickkids.ca To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Message-ID: <85256A71.00502A19.00@notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:35:34 -0400 Subject: Readability scores Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:55:02 -0400 Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov Status: O Content-Length: 2223 Lines: 59 In response to Karyn's query I am cross-posting a message from the Plain Language listserv, whose members are actively discussing the readability issue as we speak (it's just below my message). The article mentioned below by Sandra Smith has been referred to on this list before--including by its author--but just in case you haven't seen it yet... I'd also ask that in your report you also point out the limitations of readability scales in general. As Sandra also says in her article, most of them mainly use objective measures and do not account for personal factors affecting comprehension, usability, access and so on. The Doak, Doak and Root "Suitability Assessment for Materials" (or SAM) does a very good job of accounting for these broader factors, but even they would likely recommend going back to the users to verify what the scale tells you you've accomplished. I would also add that the more you can involve the people who will read the material in *determining* the content at the outset, the more likely the chance that they'll actually read and use it once it's developed---and then your efforts to account for the readability factors will make it that much easier for them to do so. Hope that helps (HTH), Michelle Black Plain Language Writer Toronto ---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Black/CMHealth/HSC on 06/20/2001 10:19 AM --------------------------- michelle.black@sickkids.ca on 06/19/2001 03:43:57 PM Please respond to language-l@list.web.net To: language-l@list.web.net cc: (bcc: Michelle Black/CMHealth/HSC) Subject: Re: LANGUAGE-L: Flesch Readability scores (was Using -ing and...) Greetings, Shirley, if you're just getting into using these scales, it might help you to get a balanced view of their merits and limitations. For a brief but interesting discussion of the Flesch and other readability scales--and of their limitations--see Sandra Smith's article on the PreNatalEd site: http://www.prenataled.com/story9.htm. A bit has been written over the years about this subject, but this article is the one I most often refer people to, since it is pretty comprehensive while still being manageable to read; and of course it's well-written =:-> Michelle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:35 EST