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 i9PGspa02168; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:54:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:54:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <6F3C1782FAFA224A8CE788E2E4985D9982E906@DSMXM003.ihs.org>
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: "Robert Dickerson" <DICKERR2@ihs.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4574] Re: Reading formulas and reading ease
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Status: O
Content-Length: 7617
Lines: 203
Thanks Audrey. I was looking for a way to summarize some of the issues
you talked about regarding readability formulas and word processing
programs in the workshop you conducted for IHS this summer for a
colleague. This is very nicely put.
A more recent article (D'Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. The
Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide
Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:807-812) confirms this problem
with Microsoft Word. The authors found the Flesch-Kincaid reading level
formula calculations in Microsoft Word 98 to be 4 to 5 grades lower than
the Fry formula and SMOG methods which were both in close agreement. Do
you know if Microsoft has addressed or is looking into resolving this
with newer versions?
This is of concern as I think many people (at least people I have worked
with) rely upon the formulas in word processing programs without fully
understanding how to apply the formulas, whether or not the results are
reliable and what the results mean. I think sometimes the reading
formula results can give people a false sense of security about the
material they are developing because it provides them an "objective"
number. We rely on numbers and data a lot in health care and "good"
numbers give health care providers a sense of security. While reading
ease is important, we need to realize there is much more to it than
that. Thanks for sharing your words of wisdom.
Thanks,
Bob Dickerson, MSHSA, RRT
Clinical Resource Coordinator, Clinical Quality
Iowa Health - Des Moines
Des Moines, Iowa
Phone: (515) 263-5792
Fax: (515) 263-5415
E-mail: DICKERR2@ihs.org
Website: www.ihsdesmoines.org
-----Original Message-----
From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of
Audrey Riffenburgh
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4573] Re: Reading formulas and reading ease
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/readingeffective
nesstool/.
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 message and accompanying documents are covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521,
and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only.
This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and
that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action
based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
*********************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:47:31 EST