Readability Formulas

Abstract

The legitimacy and methodology of using statistical measures to assess the readability of documents has been widely debated in the business and management communication literature. This article identifies major philosophical, methodological, and pedagogical issues in the controversy and explores their implications for using numerical readability measures to assess written documents. The central philosophical issue that the article addresses relates to the “appropriate” role of scientific inquiry in rhetoric. The second issue has to do with the variables readability indexes measure. Is length a sufficient and satisfactory factor in explaining reading difficulty? Finally, the article examines the pedagogical implications of using readability formulas to teach style and suggests a tentative research agenda.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Battison, R. , & Goswami, D. (1981). Clear writing today. Journal of Business Communication, 18(4), 5-16.

Berger, C. , & Chaffee, S. (1987). The study of communication as a science. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 15-19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bormuth, J. (1969). Development of readability analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.

Broadhead, G. (1985). Style in technical and scientific writing. In M. Moran & D. Journet (Eds.), Research in technical communication: A bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 217-254). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Charrow, V. (1979). What is “plain English,” anyway? Washington, DC: Document Design Center.

Courtis, J. (1987). Fry, smog, lix and rix: Insinuations about corporate business communications. Journal of Business Communication, 24(2), 19-28.

Flesch, R. (1951). How to test readability. New York: Harper & Row.

Flesch, R. (1974). The art of readable writing. New York: Harper & Row.

Gunning, R. (1968). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Halloran, S. , & Whitburn, M. (1982). Ciceronian rhetoric and the rise of science: The plain style reconsidered. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The rhetorical tradition and modern writing. New York: Modern Language Association.

11.

Karlinsky, S. , & Koch, B. (1983). Readability is in the mind of the reader. Journal of Business Communication, 20(4), 57-70.

12.

Keene, M. , & Barnes-Ostrander, M. (1985). Audience analysis and adaptation. In M. Moran & D. Journet (Eds.), Research in technical communication: A bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 163-191). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

13.

Klare, G. (1974-1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.

14.

Klare, G. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8, 129-152.

15.

McLaren, M. (1982). Responses to Readability issue. Journal of Business Communication, 19(2), 54-59.

16.

Morris, J. (1982). Responses to Readability issue. Journal of Business Communication, 19(2), 51-54.

17.

Selzer, J. (1981). Readability is a four-letter word. Journal of Business Communication, 18(4), 23-34.

18.

Tibbetts, A. (1981). Ten rules for writing readably. Journal of Business Communication, 18(4), 53-62.