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 fAJFRM029165; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <D16710276837D211BDA20008C7FAB8BC04F8FB52@aurora.nal.usda.gov> 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: Alicie White <awhite@nal.usda.gov> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3466] Re: Readability formulas and evaluation criteria X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Status: O Content-Length: 4234 Lines: 117 Related to this question regarding the use of readability formulas... I'm interested in what all of you think about composing a list of low-literacy materials in cases where the list creator is not evaluating the readability of each material. In cases where the authors/developers of materials are asked to submit "easy-to-read" materials to the list, what evidence should the developer be asked to provide to show that a material is a "low-literacy material". In some cases, materials can be deemed "low-literacy" by authors but have never been pilot tested with poor readers or evaluated using a readability formula. Perhaps the material is "written by someone with experience in writing 'low-literacy' materials." Should these materials be included? I'm curious as to what suggestions you would have for objective inclusion criteria. Use of the SAM evaluation tool, pilot testing with persons know to read at the 6th grade level, tested with a readability formula... Alicia White, MS, RD Food and Nutrition Information Center National Agricultural Library -----Original Message----- From: MarkH38514@aol.com [mailto:MarkH38514@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:16 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3457] Re: Readability formulas Point well taken. But I still use readability formulas pretty regularly, and I try to get clients not to rely exclusively on grade level estimates. Pointing out that their materials are written at a graduate school reading level, or that their document averages 30 words per sentence does get their attention. There is evidence that word frequency is a reasonable estimate of word difficulty. Words that do not appear very often in print are usually harder to read and understand than words that appear frequently. [Breland, H.M. (1996) Word frequency and word difficulty: A comparison of counts in four corpora. Psychological Science, 7, 96-99] Depending on the words used, text can be incomprehensible at any grade level. I think it's a mistake to conclude that 6th graders can always understand something written at a 6th grade reading level. They may if the writer really knows the audience; if not, then readers won't understand. We also need to be aware of document length and information overload. For example, the new HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) will transform the way health care facilities use patient information, so hospitals have to inform patients about their privacy rights. A sample HIPAA consent form from the American Hospital Association (developed by a law firm) was 3,600 words long--180 sentences at a 2nd year college reading level. This document may be completely incomprehensible for sick (and elderly) patients under physical, psychological, and emotional stress. Re-writing it to a lower grade level may not help at all if there is still more information than the patient can process. [Hochhauser, M. (2001) How you can comply with HIPAA--and help your patients understand their privacy rights. Patient Care Management, 16(12), 1; 3-4] Of course readability formulas were developed well before concepts of information processing and information overload were discovered. When I do a reability analysis I always include all the text, rather than just a sample of a few hundred words, since total number of words is an important measure. Most people read 200-300 words per minute, so a 3,600 word HIPAA document may take 15 - 20 minutes to read. Is that feasible during a hospital admission process? Common, everyday, concrete words are more likely to be understood than rare, abstract words. Most of the readability researchers recognized this point, and emphasized the importance of using words that readers already understand. Jargon, even if it's a one-syllable word, may be incomprehensible to people who aren't in the same field. 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