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 i9NIaxa15477; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <020401c4b92e$9445e7e0$2d8e2344@D5NPYT31> 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: "Audrey Riffenburgh" <ar@plainlanguageworks.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4573] Re: Reading formulas and reading ease X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4942 Lines: 137 Dear Laurie, It's nice to read about your work in health care and your tutoring! I have a background in adult literacy and readability and have also tutored adults and trained tutors. It is rewarding and challenging! I've been working in health literacy for about 10 years now. My colleague in the Clear Language Group, Jann Keenan, is right. You can search the NIFL-Health archives for my past posts on using MS Word and other software programs for readability analysis. But I'd like to say it again here and give a new resource. First, I DO NOT recommend using your word processor for readability analysis. There are several reasons. The short version is: 1) If you don't know how to prepare the document before running it through a computer program, your score will likely be much lower than the real level of your material. This is true no matter what computer program you are using. 2) In one research study, MS Word was shown to be the least reliable software program of the 4 programs evaluated for readability functions. 3) In the same study, the formula you mentioned, Flesch-Kincaid, was shown to give scores significantly different from the other most commonly used formulas such as the Fog, Smog, Flesch Reading Ease, and Fry. (See "How Reliable is Computerized Assessment of Readability?” Computers in Nursing , Vol.13, No. 5, 221-225) In my 10 years of experience in health literacy, the most common result I see of using MS Word for readability is that people believe their material is far easier than it really is. I agree with Jann Keenan that analyzing your text by hand using the Fry formula or the SMOG is best. But she is right that readability formulas only give us part of the picture. They only tell us the relative difficulty of the text but do not inform us about the influence of dozens of other factors that affect reading ease, relevance, usability, etc. However, there is a way to get information on the reading level combined with an analysis of SOME of the other factors. One of our plain language colleagues in Canada, Sally McBeth, has created a brief, but helpful tool on her firm's website. Go http://www.eastendliteracy.on.ca/clearlanguageanddesign/readingeffectivenesstool/. This is a great resource for those of you who have little or no experience in materials development but want to get a general idea of the level of difficulty of your materials. Best wishes, Audrey Riffenburgh, M.A. President, Riffenburgh & Associates Albuquerque, New Mexico Phone: (505) 345-1107 E-mail: ar@plainlanguageworks.com Specialists in Plain Language and Health Literacy since 1994 and Founding Member, The Clear Language Group, www.clearlanguagegroup.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "jann keenan" <jkeenan@erols.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:11 AM Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4570] Re: Reading formulas and reading ease > Hello Laurie-- > While lots of folks like to use the Flesch-Kincaid, I have found that > the hand-tabulated FRY READABILITY FORMULA is far more accurate. > The F-K does not account for headers and bulleted lists, among other > factors. > > There have been lively discussions on readability formulas on this list > serve. > Folks interested in what works and why can go to NIFL archives. Audrey > Riffenburgh, my colleague from the Clear Language Group consortium > addressed this topic beautifully. > > Another caution I offer about using readability formulas solely to assess > if a document is indeed readable is that they tend to take > our attention away from the other vital HL components--culture, > illustrations, > layout, typeface, interactive writing . . . > > > All best and happy writing, > > Jann > > Jann Keenan, Ed.S. > President, The Keenan Group, Inc. > Experts in Health Literacy > 9862 Century Drive > Ellicott City, MD 20142 > 410-480-9716 > Founding member, Clear Language Group > www.clearlanguagegroup.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of > Laurie Anson > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:17 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4568] Re: Seeking recommendations for literacy > level software > > > Hello! > > I am an adult literacy tutor (and critical care nurse) who frequently > "translates" material for my student, including health information. One > of the easiest tools you can use for assessing the readability level of > a text document is to transfer the document into a word processor and > run the spell/grammar check. At the bottom of the resulting table (once > corrections have been made) is a Kincaid readability scale for the > document in question. This usually works quite well for me. At that > point, adjustments can be made and the readability level rechecked as > needed. > > Good luck, > Laurie Anson > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:47:31 EST