Readability formulas determine the readability level of a passage by examining word difficulty and sentence length. Computer software packages are now available that use readability formulas to assign a readability score for the "average reader." However, readability formulas have severe methodological flaws and are not appropriate measures of the readability of materials written for adults.
In contrast, the cloze procedure as a method of determining the readability of adult material by testing the target audience itself. The cloze procedure is widely considered to be the accepted method of assessing the readability of college level material. The pro cedure may be particularly useful for business writers who have access to specific populations of readers on whom the procedure can be performed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R., Schallert, D., & Goetz, E., (1977) Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367-381.
2.
Anderson, T.H., (1974). Cloze measures as indices of achievement comprehension when learning from prose. Journal of Educational Measurement , 11, 83-92.
3.
Anderson, T.H., Armbruster, B., & Kantor, R., (1980). How clearly written are children's textbooks? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 192-275).
4.
Bates, P., (1984). How to turn your writing into communication. Personal Computing, 8, 84-93.
5.
Bormuth, J.R., (1965). Optimum sample size and cloze test length in readability measurement. Journal o fEducational Measurement, 2, 111-116.
6.
Bormuth, J.R., (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 79-132.
7.
Bormuth, J.R., (1968). Cloze test readability: Criterion reference scores . Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 189-196.
8.
Bormuth, J.R., (1969). Factor validity of cloze test measures of reading comprehension ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 358-365.
9.
Bruce, B., Rubin, A., & Starr, K., (1981). Why readability formulas fail. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 24, 50-52.
10.
Courtis, J.K., (1987). Fry, Smog, Lix, and Rix: Insinuations about corporate business communications. The Journal of Business Communication , 24, 19-28.
11.
Dale, E., & Chall, J., (1948). Aformula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 23, 11-20, 37-54.
12.
Davison, A., (1984). Readability: The situation today. (Technical Report #359). University of Illinois, Urbana: Center for the Study of Reading.
13.
Davison, A., & Kantor, R., (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187-209.
14.
Ekwall, E., & Shanker, J., (1989). Teaching reading in the elementary school. Columbus, Ohio: Merill.
15.
Flesch, R., (1948). Anew readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-223.
16.
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R.C. , (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension . Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277-294.
17.
Fry, E., (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242-252.
18.
Gunning, R., (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Haar, J., & Kossack, S., (1990). Employee benefits packages: How understandable are they?The Journal of Business Communication, 27, 185-200.
20.
Hagge, J., (1984). Review essay 1: Whatever will be, will be: Frequency analysis of English usage in business and technical writing. The Journal of Business Communication, 21, 25-36.
21.
Hayes, D.A., & Tierney, R.J., (1982). Developing readers' knowledge through analogy . Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 256-280.
22.
Hocevar, S., & Hocevar, D. (1978). The effect of meaningful versus nonmeaningful material on oral reading errors in 1st through 3rd grade children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 297-299.
23.
Internal Revenue Service, 1988. Statistics of Income Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24.
Jenkinson, M., (1957). Selected processes and difficulties in reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
25.
Jones, M.J., (1980). A longitudinal study of the readability of the chairman's narratives in the corporate reports of a UK company. Accounting and Business Research, 10, 297-298.
26.
Kaplan, I.T., Carvellas, T., & Metlay, W., (1971). Effect of context on verbal recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 202-212.
27.
Karlinsky, S.S., (1983). Readability is in the mind of the reader. The Journal of Business Communication, 20, 57-70.
28.
Klare, G.R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas . Journal of Reading Behavior, 8, 129-152.
29.
Klare, G.R. (1988). In B. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Past present and future. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Langer, J., (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension, Reading Research Quarterly , 19, 240-245.
30.
Means. T. I., (1981). Readability: An evaluative criterion of stockholder reactions to annual reports. The Journal of Business Communication , 18, 25-34.
31.
McConnell. G.R., (1982). Readability formulas as applied to college economic textbooks. Journal of Reading, 26, 14-17.
32.
McKenna, M.C., & Robinson, R. (1980). An introduction to the cloze procedure. International Reading Association.
33.
McNich, G., Kazelkis, R., & Cox, J.A., (1974). Appropriate cloze deletion schemes for determining suitability of college textbooks. In P. L. Nacke (Ed.), Interaction: Research and practice for college-adult reading. National Reading Conference.
34.
Miller, G.R., & Coleman, E.B., (1967). A set of thirty-six prose passages calibrated for complexity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 6, 851-854.
35.
Munter, M., (1986). Using the microcomputer in business communication course. The Journal of Business Communication, 23, 31-42.
36.
Nelson, R., (1987). Word processing: Let's hear it for CAW. Personal Computing, 11, 49-52.
Pearson, P.D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979) The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.
39.
Penrose, J.M., Bowman, J.P., & Flatley, M.E., (1987). The impact ofmicrocomputers on ABC with recommendations for teaching, writing, and research. The Journal of Business Communication, 24, 79-91.
40.
Peterson, J., Peters, N., & Paradis, E., (1972). Validation of the cloze procedure as a measure of readability with high school, trade, and college populations. In F. P. Greene, (Ed.), Investigations relating to mature reading. National Reading Conference .
41.
Razek, J.R., & Cone, R.E., (1981). Readability of business communication textbooks—an empirical study. The Journal of Business Communication, 18,33-40.
42.
Reynolds, R., Taylor, M., Steffenson, M., Shirey, L., & Anderson, R.C. , (1982). Cultural schemata and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 353-366.
43.
Ribovich, J.K., (1979). The effect of informational background on various reading-related behaviors in adult subjects. Reading World , 18, 240-245.
44.
Roundy, N., (1983). A program for revision in business and technical writing. The Journal of Business Communication, 20, 55-66.
45.
Schroeder, N., & Gibson, C., (1990). Readability of management's discussion and analysis . Accounting Horizons4, 78-88.
46.
Schroeder, N., & Gibson, C., (1987). Using microcomputers to improve written communication . CPA Journal, 57, 50-57.
47.
Selzer, J., (1981). Readability is a four letter word. The Journal of Business Communication, 57, 23-34.
48.
Singer, H., & Donlan, D., (1980). Reading and learning from text. Little Brown.
49.
Soldow, G.F., (1982). A study of the longitudinal dimensions of information processing as a function of cognitive complexity. The Journal of Business Communication, 19, 185-200.
50.
Sterkel, K.S., Johnson, M.I., & Sjogron, D.D., (1986). Text analysis with computers to improve the writing skills of business communication students. The Journal of Business Communication, 23, 43-61.
51.
Stevens, K., (1982). Can we improve reading by teaching background information ?Journal of Reading, 25, 526-529.
52.
Stevens, K., (1980). Readability formulas and the McCall-Crabbs standard test lessons in reading. The Reading Teacher, 33, 413-415.
53.
Stevens, K., (1980). The effect of background knowledge on the reading comprehension of 9th graders. Journal of Reading Behavior , 12, 151-154.
54.
Taylor, W.L., (1956). Recent developments in the use of the cloze procedure . Journalism Quarterly, 42, 48-99.
55.
Voss, J.F., & Bisanz, G.L., (1985). Sources of knowledge in reading comprehension: Cognitive development and expertise in a content domain. In A. M. Lesgold, & C. A. Perfetti, (Eds.) Interactive processes in reading (pp. 215-239). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
56.
Wedell, A.J., & Allerheiligen, R. (1991). Computer assisted writing instruction: Is it effective?The Journal of Business Communication , 28, 131-141.
57.
Zakaluk, B., & Samuels, S. J., (Eds.). (1988). Readability: Past, present, and future. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
