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 i9QD36a25077; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <EA189097-274E-11D9-AE57-000A95940D36@epix.net> 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: Laurie Anson <ansons@epix.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4576] Re: Reading formulas and reading ease X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 10291 Lines: 271 Thanks to everyone for the information on readability. In actual fact, although I use the word processor readability as a "quick and dirty" checkup as I write, I use Fry for a final assessment and my years of teaching low-literacy patients for my "translations" of medical jargon. So far, on the verbal end of teaching, the response has been quite gratifying. Obviously this sort of process is not easily communicated to other practitioners, as it tends to fall under the heading of "automatic thinking" and no longer requires much of a thought process. I have heard that experts make the worst teachers, as they tend to forget the processes that get them to the final product. I agree with that assessment, as long as the experts are not continually brought up short by a blank look and a "What?" That response does tend to keep us honest... Laurie Anson, RN On Oct 25, 2004, at 4:03 PM, Audrey Riffenburgh wrote: > Dear Rob, > > Yes, I have had much the same experience. Many people do have a false > sense > of security! They don't think they need training or any help in making > their > materials more accessible because the Word score "tells" them that. No > matter what state I travel to, there are always people who say, "We > know our > materials are at 6th grade level because we tested them with Word." > This > has been an ongoing issue for many years. > > I contacted Microsoft several years ago about the problem and they > were not > interested in discussing it. Now that we have more research, and it's > been > published (mine was not adequate because it was unpublished), perhaps > they'll be more interested. I'll try again and let the list know what > the > response is. > > Audrey Riffenburgh, M.A. > President, Riffenburgh & Associates > P.O. Box 6670, Albuquerque, NM 87197 > Phone: (505) 345-1107 Fax: (505) 345-1104 > E-mail: ar@plainlanguageworks.com > Specialists in Plain Language and Health Literacy since 1994 > and > Principal & Founding Member, The Clear Language Group > www.clearlanguagegroup.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Dickerson" <DICKERR2@ihs.org> > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:54 AM > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4574] Re: Reading formulas and reading ease > > > 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