NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Publication Date
In 20260
Since 20250
Since 2022 (last 5 years)0
Since 2017 (last 10 years)2
Since 2007 (last 20 years)6
Laws, Policies, & Programs
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Showing 16 to 30 of 155 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Blumenfeld, Warren S.; Justice, Barry M. – Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975
Concludes that test results are essentially the same for both the Flesch and Gunning reading indices. (RB)
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Elementary Education, Readability, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Thomas, Georgelle; And Others – Journal of Reading Behavior, 1975
Analysis of variance applied to measured working times indicated that the Flesch takes significantly longer to use than Automated Readability Index and the Fog Count. (RB)
Descriptors: Measurement Instruments, Readability, Readability Formulas, Reading Level
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Muir, Sharon – Reading Horizons, 1978
Discusses the accuracy of the Fog Index and the SMOG grade (two readability formulas) as predicators of readability. (MAI)
Descriptors: Intermediate Grades, Predictive Validity, Readability, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Karlinsky, Stewart S.; Koch, Bruce S. – Journal of Business Communication, 1983
Found that standard readability indexes by themselves are not useful in measuring readability and comprehensibility of income tax material. Also casts doubt on the use of only readability indexes to measure insurance, labor, and real estate contracts. (PD)
Descriptors: College Students, Higher Education, Readability, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Blanchard, Jay S. – Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1981
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was analyzed by readability formulas which represent varying criterion of comprehension from 50 to 90 percent. If an examiner wishes to ensure 90 percent comprehension of the inventory items, nine years of successful schooling seem necessary. (Author/SJL)
Descriptors: Content Analysis, Difficulty Level, Personality Measures, Readability
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Fitzgerald, Gisela G. – Reading Research Quarterly, 1980
Takes issue with E. Fry's widely accepted claim that the average readability of a book is ascertainable on the basis of only three samples; reports that numerous samples were needed to estimate readability means of 36 basal workbooks. (MKM)
Descriptors: Basal Reading, Elementary Education, Readability, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Christ, William G.; Pharr, Paula – Journalism Quarterly, 1980
A study of the readability of governmental pamphlets produced by the State of Florida, based on the use of the Flesch Reading Ease Formula and the Dale-Chall Formula, suggests that if a seventh or eighth grade readability level is considered an appropriate standard for public information brochures, the brochures tested may be too complex…
Descriptors: Government Publications, Information Dissemination, Readability, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Harris, Albert J.; Jacobson, Milton D. – Reading Teacher, 1980
Concludes that the Spache and Harris-Jacobson readability formulas are quite similar in variables used, in the way they were developed, and in statistical characteristics; notes differences in the Fry graph and raises questions about its suitability for measuring the readability of primary grade reading materials. (ET)
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Difficulty Level, Primary Education, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Fusaro, Joseph A. – Reading Research and Instruction, 1988
Supports the results of a previous study that concluded that the Farr-Jenkins-Paterson formula resulted in a more difficult readability level than the Flesch Reading Ease formula, the Dale-Chall Readability formula, and the Fry Readability Graph, and that the Fry Readability Graph is accurate within one grade level. (MS)
Descriptors: Guides, Readability, Readability Formulas, Reading Research
Hoke, Brenda Lynn – 1999
This study was done to see if readability levels printed on recreational reading books were as accurate as when the Fry formula and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level were applied to them. Three descriptive passages from each of 60 recreational reading books were analyzed using the Fry formula and the Flesch-Kincaid formula. The data was compared to…
Descriptors: Intermediate Grades, Readability, Readability Formulas, Reading Material Selection
FRY, EDWARD – 1967
A REVISION OF THE READABILITY GRAPH WITH DIRECTIONS FOR ITS USE AND VALIDTIY DATA ARE PRESENTED. THE USE OF THE GRAPH INVOLVES WORD SAMPLES, NUMBER OF SENTENCES, AND NUMBER OF SYLLABLES. THE LATTER TWO ARE PLOTTED ON A GRAPH TO ASCERTAIN GRADE LEVELS. THE CORRELATIONS OF THE READABILITY GRAPH WITH THE DALE-CHALL, FLESCH, AND SPACHE FORMULAS ARE…
Descriptors: Graphs, Predictive Validity, Readability, Readability Formulas
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Olson, Arthur V. – Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1986
This study examined the McCall-Crabbs Standard Test Lessons in Reading to determine whether selections of passages covered a sufficiently wide range of difficulty to warrant their use in developing readability formulas. The results, which find several readability formulas suspect, are discussed. (Author/MT)
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Difficulty Level, Elementary Education, Measurement Techniques
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Rye, James – Reading, 1985
Explores the use of microcomputers in readability calculation. (DF)
Descriptors: Computer Software, Courseware, Elementary Secondary Education, Microcomputers
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
McConnell, Campbell R. – Journal of Reading, 1982
Determines from empirical information on the application of four readability formulas to a group of widely used college economics textbooks that there is no consistency in the absolute reading levels or the rank orderings of these books. (AEA)
Descriptors: Content Analysis, Economics, Higher Education, Readability
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Fry, Edward – Reading Teacher, 1980
Responds to doubts raised in the preceding article about the author's readability graph. Defends the orthodoxy of the procedures used to develop the graph and presents data showing that it correlates quite well with the other formulas on first- and second-grade materials and is just a little high on third- grade materials. (ET)
Descriptors: Difficulty Level, Primary Education, Readability Formulas, Reading Material Selection
Pages: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11