College of Pharmacy, University of Oklahoma, 4502 East 41st Street, Tulsa, OK 74135, USA.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Sep-Oct;9(5):503-16. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009. Epub 2012 Jul 25.
Readability formulas are often used to guide the development and evaluation of literacy-sensitive written health information. However, readability formula results may vary considerably as a result of differences in software processing algorithms and how each formula is applied. These variations complicate interpretations of reading grade level estimates, particularly without a uniform guideline for applying and interpreting readability formulas.
This research sought to (1) identify commonly used readability formulas reported in the health care literature, (2) demonstrate the use of the most commonly used readability formulas on written health information, (3) compare and contrast the differences when applying common readability formulas to identical selections of written health information, and (4) provide recommendations for choosing an appropriate readability formula for written health-related materials to optimize their use.
A literature search was conducted to identify the most commonly used readability formulas in health care literature. Each of the identified formulas was subsequently applied to word samples from 15 unique examples of written health information about the topic of depression and its treatment. Readability estimates from common readability formulas were compared based on text sample size, selection, formatting, software type, and/or hand calculations. Recommendations for their use were provided.
The Flesch-Kincaid formula was most commonly used (57.42%). Readability formulas demonstrated variability up to 5 reading grade levels on the same text. The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula performed most consistently. Depending on the text sample size, selection, formatting, software, and/or hand calculations, the individual readability formula estimated up to 6 reading grade levels of variability.
The SMOG formula appears best suited for health care applications because of its consistency of results, higher level of expected comprehension, use of more recent validation criteria for determining reading grade level estimates, and simplicity of use. To improve interpretation of readability results, reporting reading grade level estimates from any formula should be accompanied with information about word sample size, location of word sampling in the text, formatting, and method of calculation.
可读性公式常用于指导编写适合阅读水平的卫生信息，并对其进行评估。然而，由于软件处理算法和公式应用方式的不同，可读性公式的结果可能会有很大差异。这些差异使得阅读水平估计的解释变得复杂，尤其是在缺乏统一的应用和解释可读性公式的指导方针的情况下。
本研究旨在：(1) 确定在卫生保健文献中报告的常用可读性公式；(2) 展示最常用的可读性公式在书面卫生信息中的应用；(3) 比较和对比相同书面卫生信息选择应用常见可读性公式的差异；(4) 为书面卫生相关材料选择合适的可读性公式提供建议，以优化其使用。
进行文献检索，以确定卫生保健文献中最常用的可读性公式。随后，将每种识别出的公式应用于 15 个关于抑郁症及其治疗的书面卫生信息示例的单词样本。根据文本样本大小、选择、格式、软件类型和/或手工计算，比较常见可读性公式的可读性估计值。提供了使用建议。
Flesch-Kincaid 公式的使用最为普遍(57.42%)。在相同的文本上，可读性公式的差异可达 5 个阅读水平等级。简单的文字难度测量法 (SMOG) 可读性公式表现最为稳定。根据文本样本大小、选择、格式、软件和/或手工计算，个别可读性公式的估计值差异可达 6 个阅读水平等级。
由于 SMOG 公式结果的一致性、预期理解程度较高、使用更近期的确定阅读水平等级估计的验证标准以及使用的简便性，它似乎最适合用于医疗保健应用。为了提高可读性结果的解释，任何公式的阅读水平等级估计值报告都应附有关于单词样本大小、单词采样在文本中的位置、格式和计算方法的信息。
