Good and poor readers (aged 60+) were tested on three versions of documents describing social services—the original document, a version simplified by a readability formula, and a version simplified ‘subjectively’ by skilled writers. Results indicate that in only one of the four documents (the longest one) was comprehension improved by subjective rewriting; simplification by readability formula had no effect on comprehension. Reading ability, however, was a significant covariate for comprehension. The study concludes that the ‘readability’ of a document is a poor indicator of its comprehensibility for aged subjects, and that simplifying the language of documents may not be sufficient in easing their comprehension difficulties.
References
1.
AllingtonR.L.WalmsleyS.A.July1980. Identifying and easing the reading demands of the elderly, Final Report for NIH-NIA grant (#5-R23-AG00682-02)July, Albany, New York: State University of New York at Albany.
2.
HerzogK.D.1979. A comprehension study of three versions of the Gospel of Mark and their appropriateness for use by 6th graders with various reading abilities, Florida State University. Unpublished dissertation (Diss. Abstracts #40, 4980-A)
3.
KernR.P.January1980. Usefulness of readability formulas for achieving army readability objectives: research and state-of-the-art applied to the army's problem, January, Alexandria, Virginia: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
4.
KincaidJ.P.FishburneR.P.RogersR.L.ChissomB.S.February1975. Derivation of new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel, Research Branch Report #8-75. MillingtonFebruary, Tennessee: US Navy Technical Training Command.
5.
ScottK.M.1980. An analysis of cloze errors of senior citizens: syntactic and semantic misconstraints at the sentence and text levels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association (NERA). October1980, Ellenville, New York
6.
AfflerbachP.O.AllingtonR.L.WalmsleyS.A.A basic vocabulary of US Federal social program applications and forms. Journal of Reading, 1980, 23, 332–336.
7.
AllingtonR.L.WalmsleyS.A.Functional competence in reading amongst the urban aged. Journal of Reading, 1980, 23, 494–497.
8.
BendickM.CantuM.G.The literacy of welfare clients. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1978.
9.
BirkhillW.R.SchaieK.W.The effect of differential reinforcement of cautiousness in intellectual performance among the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 1975, 30, 578–583.
10.
DuffelmeyerF.A.The effect of rewriting prose materials on reading comprehension. Reading World, 1979, 19, 1–11.
11.
KincaidC.D.KincaidJ.P.LewisR.F.Even loan forms can be readable. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 1977, 27, 8–9.
12.
KincaidJ.P.GambleL.G.Comprehension of standard and readable automobile insurance policies and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1977, 9, 85–87.
13.
KlareG.R.A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1976, 8, 129–152.
14.
MorrisL.A.MyersA.ThilmanD.G.Application of the readability concept to patient-oriented drug information. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 1980, 37, 1504–1509.
15.
PoultonE.C.Quantitative subjective assessments are almost always biased, sometimes completely misleading. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1976, 29, 385–387.
16.
RedishJ.Readability. In, FelkerD.B. (Ed), Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research.Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research, 1980, 69–94.
17.
StichtT.G.ZapfD.W., (Eds), Reading and Readability Research in the Armed Services.Alexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research Organization, 1976.
18.
TrapiniF.WalmsleyS.A.Five readability estimates: differential effects of simplifying a document. Journal of Reading, 1981, 24, 398–403.
19.
WalmsleyS.A.Aging research in higher education: research in reading processes of the elderly (problems and promise). Reading Psychology, 1980, 1, 177–183.
20.
WalmsleyS.A.AllingtonR.L.Reading abilities of the elderly in relation to the difficulty of essential documents. The Gerontologist, 1981 (inpress).
WrightP.Strategy and tactics in the design of forms. Visible Language, 1980, 14, 151–193.
23.
WrightP.Usability: the criterion for designing written information. In, KolersP.A.WrolstadM.E.BoumaH. (Eds), Processing Visible Language, Vol. 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1980, 183–205).
