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 fAHKsO006460; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:54:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:54:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <NFBBJCJJCLBEEENELGAGEEOCCCAA.sandras@u.washington.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: "Sandra Smith" <sandras@u.washington.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3464] Re: In Search of Validation of Readability and Health Lite... 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: 4755 Lines: 116 Mark et al - thanks for the references. And you wrote "found that although all six programs calculated the Flesch-Kincaid, the grade level estimates ranged from 12.1 to 15.5" -- I understand the F-K is geared to a 5th grade reading level and so is increasingly unreliable past a 6th grade rating. So all these readings are off the chart and indicate the consent form is way beyond a 5th grade level. Would you agree? SSSandra Smith, MPH CHES 800-444-8806 Zero to Three Fellow National Center for Infants, Toddlers & Families Health Education Specialist University of Washington Center for Health Education & Research Clinical Instructor, Health Services Editor: http://www.PrenatalEd.com Beginnings: A Practical Guide through Pregnancy Beginnings Parent's Guide Mailing Address: 2821 2nd Ave Suite 1601 Seattle WA 98121 Fax 206-728-1926 sandras@u.washington.edu -----Original Message----- From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of MarkH38514@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:27 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3453] Re: In Search of Validation of Readability and Health Lite... For a good review on the development of readability formulas, see: Klare, George (1974-1975) Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 62-102. For information about the FOG: Gunning, Robert (1952) The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gunning, Robert (1968) The Fog Index after twenty years. The Journal of Business Communications, Winter 1968, 6, 3-13. For information about the SMOG: McLaughlin, G. Harry (1969) SMOG grading--a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, May 1969, 12, 639-646. For information about the Flesch-Kincaid: Kincaid, J. P. & McDaniel, W.C. (1974) An inexpensive automated way of calculating Flesch Reading Ease scores. Patient Disclosure Document No. 031350, US Pateint Office, Washington, DC. Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P, Rogers, R.L. and Chissom, B.S. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel, Research Branch Report 8-75. Memphis, TN: Naval Air Station, 1975. Any validation studies are 30-50 years old. The Flesch-Kincaid was developed on Navy personnel in the 1970s, so it's not clear how well those findings generalize to the rest of the population. Other formulas were based on school children from the 1940s - 1970s. Even the updated Dale-Chall formula (1995) was based on data from elementary school children in the 1970s. It would be very nice to have someone develop and validate new readability formulas for the 21st century. Although readability formulas were originally developed to be calculated by hand, they'e been available as software programs for 15-20 years. But it's not easy to convert a readability formula to a software program. Most of the readability formulas require a syllable count. As Klare notes, software developers couldn't write programs that would actually count syllables directly, but only estimate them, using vowels/word, consonants/word and letter/word algorithms. For example: Coke, E.U & Rothkopf, E.Z. (1970) Note on a simple altorith for a computer-produced Reasing Eae score. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 208-210. Fang, I.E. (1968) By computer: Flesch's Reading Ease score and a syllable counter. Behvioral Science, 13, 249-251. This helps explain the odd finding that if you have four readability software programs all of which calculate the same readability formula, you may get four slightly different estimates! I researched readability software comparisons for an informed consent form, and found that although all six programs calculated the Flesch-Kincaid, the grade level estimates ranged from 12.1 to 15.5--a difference of 3 1/2 grades, and the Flesch Reading Ease scores ranged from 37 - 45. [Hochhauser, M. (1997) Some overlooked aspects of consent form readability. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 19(5), 5-9] When using readability formulas I run the document through several programs, and take the average grade level. Plus it's not clear if the formulas count a sentence with a semi-colon or colon as one sentence or two sentences. A long sentence (more of a list) with 5 semi-colons might be counted a 6 sentences (five semi-colons and one period) or one long sentence. Software documentation doesn't give that kind of detailed information, so unless you experiment with your readability software, you'll never know how it does its calculations. Mark Hochhauser For more information, contact: Mark Hochhauser, Ph.D. Readability Consulting 3344 Scott Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: (763) 521-4672 Fax: (763) 521-5069 E-mail: MarkH38514@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:44 EST