PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION.

Janice C. Redish, John L. Selzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Readability formulas are inadequate measures of how difficult written material is for adult readers, say these authors. In fact, readability formulas are counterproductive because they focus the writer's attention on words and sentences and draw attention away from important sources of readers' problems. Readability formulas are being used in contexts where they have no research base, and they are being misused by writers who rewrite to achieve a specific required score. A better way of assessing readability is user testing. This article has three parts. We begin by defining the topic for those who are not familiar with readability formulas. In the main part of the article, we discuss five facts that lead us to recommend that writers not use readability formulas. In the final section, we suggest another approach to testing documents and some possibilities for making this alternative financially and managerially feasible.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)46-52
Number of pages7
JournalTechnical Communication
Volume32
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jan 4 1985

Fingerprint

writer
communication
Communication
Testing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Communication
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Redish, J. C., & Selzer, J. L. (1985). PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION. Technical Communication, 32(4), 46-52.
Redish, Janice C. ; Selzer, John L. / PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION. In: Technical Communication. 1985 ; Vol. 32, No. 4. pp. 46-52.
@article{28a86007cefc4596b39d379a16e48be1,
title = "PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION.",
abstract = "Readability formulas are inadequate measures of how difficult written material is for adult readers, say these authors. In fact, readability formulas are counterproductive because they focus the writer's attention on words and sentences and draw attention away from important sources of readers' problems. Readability formulas are being used in contexts where they have no research base, and they are being misused by writers who rewrite to achieve a specific required score. A better way of assessing readability is user testing. This article has three parts. We begin by defining the topic for those who are not familiar with readability formulas. In the main part of the article, we discuss five facts that lead us to recommend that writers not use readability formulas. In the final section, we suggest another approach to testing documents and some possibilities for making this alternative financially and managerially feasible.",
author = "Redish, {Janice C.} and Selzer, {John L.}",
year = "1985",
month = "1",
day = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "46--52",
journal = "Technical Communication",
issn = "0049-3155",
publisher = "Society For Technical Communication",
number = "4",

}

Redish, JC & Selzer, JL 1985, 'PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION.', Technical Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 46-52.

PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION. / Redish, Janice C.; Selzer, John L.

In: Technical Communication, Vol. 32, No. 4, 04.01.1985, p. 46-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - PLACE OF READABILITY FORMULAS IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION.

AU - Redish, Janice C.

AU - Selzer, John L.

PY - 1985/1/4

Y1 - 1985/1/4

N2 - Readability formulas are inadequate measures of how difficult written material is for adult readers, say these authors. In fact, readability formulas are counterproductive because they focus the writer's attention on words and sentences and draw attention away from important sources of readers' problems. Readability formulas are being used in contexts where they have no research base, and they are being misused by writers who rewrite to achieve a specific required score. A better way of assessing readability is user testing. This article has three parts. We begin by defining the topic for those who are not familiar with readability formulas. In the main part of the article, we discuss five facts that lead us to recommend that writers not use readability formulas. In the final section, we suggest another approach to testing documents and some possibilities for making this alternative financially and managerially feasible.

AB - Readability formulas are inadequate measures of how difficult written material is for adult readers, say these authors. In fact, readability formulas are counterproductive because they focus the writer's attention on words and sentences and draw attention away from important sources of readers' problems. Readability formulas are being used in contexts where they have no research base, and they are being misused by writers who rewrite to achieve a specific required score. A better way of assessing readability is user testing. This article has three parts. We begin by defining the topic for those who are not familiar with readability formulas. In the main part of the article, we discuss five facts that lead us to recommend that writers not use readability formulas. In the final section, we suggest another approach to testing documents and some possibilities for making this alternative financially and managerially feasible.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022419074&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022419074&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0022419074

VL - 32

SP - 46

EP - 52

JO - Technical Communication

JF - Technical Communication

SN - 0049-3155

IS - 4

ER -