This study tested the relationship between performance and the readability of annual
reports. Style analysis of 60 annual reports using a computer style analyzer revealed
that the annual reports of good performers were easier to read than those of poor per
formers. Good performers used strong writing in their annual reports unlike poor
performers, but did not use significantly more jargon or modifiers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Badaracco, C. (1988). Smoke and substance: Trends in annual reportsPublic Relations Quarterly, 33(1), 13-17.
2.
Bormuth, J.R. (1966). Readability: A new approachReading Research Quarterly, 1 , 79-132.
3.
Bruce, H. (1987). Perfectly unclearCanadian Business , 60(3), 84-85,114.
4.
Courtis, J.K. (1986). An investigation into annual report readability and corporate risk-return relationshipsAccounting and Business Research, 16(64), 285-294.
5.
Courtis, J.K. (1987). Fry, Smog, Lix, and Rix: Insinuations about corporate business communicationsThe Journal of Business Communication , 24(2), 19-27.
6.
Dale, E., & Chall, J.S. (1948). A formula for predicting readabilityEducation Research Bulletin, 27, 11-20, 37-54.
7.
Fisher, F.A., & Hu, M.Y. (1989). Does the CEO's letter to the shareholders have predictive value?Business Forum, 14(1), 22-24.
8.
Flesch, R. (1946). The art of plain talkNew York : Harper and Brothers Publishers.
9.
Fry, E.B. (1988). Writability: The principles of writing for increased comprehension In B.L. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present and future (pp. 312-329). Newark: International Reading Association.
10.
Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writingNew York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Heath, R., & Phelps, G. (1984). Annual reports II: Readability of reports versus business pressPublic Relations Review , 10(2), 56-62.
12.
Jones, M.J. (1988a). A Longitudinal study of the readability of the chairman's narratives in the corporate reports of a UK companyAccounting and Business Research, 18(72), 297-305.
13.
Jones, M.J. (1988b). Annual corporate reports: A waste of time and money?Management Accounting (UK), 66(2), 40-41.
14.
Karlinsky, S.S., & Koch, B. (1983). Readability is in the mind of the readerThe Journal of Business Communication, 20(4), 57-69.
15.
Klare, G.R. (1974). Assessing readabilityReading Research Quarterly, 10(1), 63-102.
16.
Klare, G.R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulasJournal of Reading Behavior, 8, 129-152.
17.
Lee, T.A., & Tweedie, D.P. (1975, Autumn). Accounting information: An investigation of private shareholder usageAccounting and Business Research , pp. 280-291.
18.
McClure, G.M. (1987). Readability formulas: Useful or useless?IEEE transactions on professional communication, 30(1), 12-15.
19.
McConnell, D., Haslem, J.A., & Gibson, V.R. (1986). The president's letter to stockholders: A new lookFinancial Analysts Journal, 42(5), 66-70.
20.
Schroeder, N., & Gibson, C. (1988). Improving annual reports by improving the readability of footnotesWoman CPA, 50(2), 13-16.
21.
Seitel, F.P. (1989). Rethinking the annual reportUnited States Banker, 98(10), 89-90.
22.
Tekfi, C. (1987). Readability formulas: An overviewJournal of Documentation, 43(3), 257-269.
23.
Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.) (1988). Readability: Its past, present and futureNewark: International Reading Association.
