Readability indices

Do they inform or misinform?

This paper discusses recent criticism of readability formulas, in this issue of IDJ and elsewhere; the author points to evidence in their favor and focuses on three aspects of their application: when, how and why. He distinguishes between the valid use of formulas to predict reading difficulty and the invalid use to produce clear writing. Finally he points to recent research which explores new and more subtle variables.

Published online: 01 January 1981
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.2.3-4.08kla

Cited by

Cited by other publications

DUFFY, THOMAS M.

1985. In Designing Usable Texts, ► pp. 113 ff.

Howes, Loene M., Roberta Julian, Sally F. Kelty, Nenagh Kemp & K. Paul Kirkbride

2014. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis. Forensic Science International 237 ► pp. 7 ff.

Howes, Loene Monique

2015. A step towards increased understanding by non-scientists of expert reports: recommendations for readability. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 47:4 ► pp. 456 ff.

SCHUMACHER, GARY M. & ROBERT WALLER

1985. In Designing Usable Texts, ► pp. 377 ff.

Wright, Patricia

1987. Chapter 8: Writing Technical Information. Review of Research in Education 14:1 ► pp. 327 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.