Dentch, O'Farrell, and Cutter analyzed the readability of nine marital assessments with the Forbes method. This method is questioned because it relies on an outmoded dictionary of word usage as well as the inappropriate manner in which it was employed. Alternative methods of readability assessment are recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BormuthJ. R.Development of readability analyses. (Project No. 7–0052)Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1969.
2.
DaleE.O'RourkeJ.The living word vocabulary. Elgin, IL: Field Enterprises, 1976.
3.
DentchG. E.O'FarrellT. J.CutterH. S. G.Readability of marital assessment measures used by behavioral marriage therapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1980, 48, 790–792.
4.
FleschR.The art of readable writing. New York: Harper, 1949.
5.
ForbesF. W.CottleW. C.A new method for determining readability of standardized tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 37, 185–190.
6.
KlareG. R.Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 1974, 10, 62–102.
7.
PoolI.Trends in content analysis today: a summary. In PoolI. (Ed.), Trends in content analysis. Urbana, IL: Univer. of Illinois Press, 1959. Pp. 189–233.
8.
ThorndikeE. L.Thorndike junior century dictionary. (Rev. ed.) New York: Scott Foresman, 1942.
