This study examines the impact of two facets of income tax law complexity-text and content complexity-to determine the effect of variation in style on professional tasks. The research results deal with the effectiveness of standard readability tests for profes sional readers, as well as how our tax laws should be drafted.
The study shows that text presentation style magnifies the complexity of difficult tax law concepts. Also, results indicate that the Reading Complexity Evaluation Index is a better measure for technical writing than standard readability tests currently used by industry and government agencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R.C., & Davison, A. (1986). Conceptual and empirical bases of readability formulas (Technical report). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
2.
Andrews, J.D., Karlinsky, S., & Koch, B. (1984). Readability in the adult reader. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 10 (Winter), 185-191.
3.
Battison, R., & Goswami, D. (1981). Clear writing today. The Journal of Business Communication, 18(5), 5-16.
4.
Binkley, M.R. (1988). New ways of assessing text difficulty. In B. L. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present and future (pp. 98-120). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
5.
Davison, A. (1988). Assigning grade levels without formulas: Some case studies. In B. L. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present and future (pp. 36-59). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6.
Duffy, T., & Kabance, R. (1982). Testing a readable writing approach to text revision . Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 733-748.
7.
Ely, L.J. (1981, August). The problem with plain talk is English . Best's Review: Property and Casualty, pp. 20-24.
8.
Eschew verbiage, realize gain. (1982, December 6). Los Angeles Times, p. 2.
9.
Felsenfeld, C., & Siegel, A. (1981). Writing contracts in plain English. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
10.
Flesch, R. (1951). How to test readability. New York: Harper and Brothers.
11.
Fry, E.B. (1989). Reading formulas - maligned but valid. Journal of Reading, 32,292-297.
12.
Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. (1982). Assessment: Responses to exposition. In A. Berger & H. A. Robinson (Eds.) Secondary schoolreading (pp. 127-142). Urbana, IL: National Institute of Education .
13.
Jones, M.J. (1988). A longitudinal study of the readability of the chairman's narratives in the corporate reports of a UK company. Accounting and Business Research, 18, 297-306.
14.
Karlinsky, S., & Koch, B. (1987). The impact of tax law complexity on professionals. TheJournal of The American Taxation Association, 9 (Fall), 24-34.
15.
Karlinsky, S., & Koch, B. (1983). Readability is in the mind of the reader. The Journal of Business Communication, 20(4), 57-67.
16.
Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R.L., & Chissom, B.S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel (Research Branch report 8-75). Millington, TN: Chief of Naval Training.
17.
Klare, G.R. (1984). Reading and comprehension. In R. Easterly & H. Zwaga (Eds.) Information design (pp. 479-495). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
Koch, B., & Karlinsky, S. (1984). The effect of federal income tax law reading complexity on students' task performance. Issues in Accounting Education , 1, 98-110.
19.
Matchett, M., & Ray, M.L. (1989). Revising IRS publications: A case study. Technical Communications, 36, 332-340.
20.
McClure, G.M. (1987, March). Readability formulas: Useful or useless?IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, pp. 12-15.
21.
Perkins, K., & others ( 1986). Derivational complexity and item difficulty in a sentence repetition task. Language Learning, 36 (June), 124-141.
22.
Reagan, R. (1985a, February 6). The state of the union address.
23.
Reagan, R. (1985b, May 29). Tax proposal to the congress for fairness, growth and simplicity. Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
24.
Reckers, P., & Stagliano, A. (1980). State income tax forms: Atest of readabilityAkron Business and Economic Review, 11 (Summer), 42.
25.
Redish, J. (1980). Readability. In D. Felker (Ed.) Document design: A review of the relevant research. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Research.
26.
Schroeder, N., & Gibson, C. (1990). Readability of management's discussion and analysis . Accounting Horizons, 4, 78-87.
27.
Schumacher, G.M., & Waller, R. (1985). Testing design alternatives: A comparison of procedures . In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 377-404). Academic Press, Inc.
28.
Selzer, J. (1981). Readability is a four-letter word. The Journal of Business Communication, 18(4), 23-34.
29.
Tax reports. (1983, January 21). Wall Street Journal, p. 4.
30.
U.S. Comptroller General (1978). Further simplification of income tax forms is needed and possible. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office . pp. 3-4.
